On 6/5/09 12:18 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
> I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
I thought that the previous discussion was actually to separate the web from
the source, i.e., more, rather than less, separation.
But I'm OK to move in this direction; I'm ambivalent, personally.
>
> PRO:
> + one less branch/repo to track
> + easier to fix typos in the web pages
> + we can direct everybody to look at the CG (no more README in the
> newweb/ branch)
> + allows better integration with the other docs (this is more a
> post-GOP feature)
>
> CON:
> - adds 30 megs to the main branch (including the .git dir)
> - makes translations harder? (maybe? ... I don't know if this is
> true, but IMO this is the only real reason to avoid doing this)
>
Another con might be that those who might be willing to work on the web but
who don't have a git repo of the source would need a much bigger git repo
(i.e. all of LilyPond, instead of just the web).
>
>
> If we agree with this proposal, then we'll be left with:
> lilypond repo
> . master branch
> . individual testing branches
Do we need all of the individual testing branches? I'm fairly certain that
the csorensen branch is useless. I think the original idea behind the
csorensen branch was that I would make changes and push them to that branch,
then somebody else would cherry-pick the changes. I think that that model
for fixing things has been replaced. We now have the git-cl means of having
patches reviewed and then pushed; perhaps we don't need the individual
branches?
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
