On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Graham Percival<gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:07:30AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> The docs are specific to a given lilypond version, and should >> therefore always be part of the main branch that contains the code. >> The website is a a living 'document' that talks about several lilypond >> versions, and that changes independently of the code repository. For >> example, the website may be updated to link to appearing or >> disappearing news articles. > I really don't see the website as being more or less > version-specific than certain parts of the docs, such as the > Learning Manual. Ok, granted, the << >> construct in the tutorial > changed since the 1.8 days... but the cygwin build stuff changed > in, what, 2.4? 2.6? > > Let me put it another way: I can't think of any compelling reason > that we should maintain a seperate repo just for the website.
Well, I can't see a compelling reason to merge them, and we'll have revamp various scripts and makefile targets to accomodate this change for no good reason. (If you think that I will be more compelled to update the website when I do a release, you are mistaken.) >> You may recall that, in a distant past, the website was really >> generated from the source code that we had, and I have no fond >> memories of the scheme; see >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v1.6/Documentation/out-www/index.html > > Really? I actually prefer that website over our current one. :) > Granted, there's too much info on the very first page, but that > would be an easy fix. > >> From a developer perspective, merging both means adding a lot of noise >> commits that hinder both website development and lilypond development. > > I totally disagree here. There's only 2-3 "normal maintenance" > commits to the website every week. When we do the main rewriting, > there'll be many updates... but probably less than GDP. And I'm > quite willing to do those on a separate branch anyway, so they > won't trigger RSS messages. > > How long has it been since anybody looked at > http://lilypond.org/web/devel/ > or > http://lilypond.org/web/about/faq > ? > > The current setup definitely hinders website development, and I This does not make sense to me: in what way does it hinder development? What is the essential difference between cd ../website and cd website wrt contributing changes? If you think that lilypond contributors automatically start contributing to things once they appears inside their lilypond source code trees, then maybe we should merge gub into the lilypond master branch (ok, just kidding) > That said, I'm not going to absolutely insist on this. If you > really want to keep it in a separate repo, we can do that. But > the only change I can see this making is that we'd only have 1-2 > contributors responding to website problem reports, instead of > 8-12. > > Cheers, > - Graham > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
