On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Graham Percival wrote: > My apologies for being unclear in the past. (and my advanced > apologies for being unclear in the future, although hopefully I > won't be unclear about this specific issue) > > The web-gop branch now contains lilypond-web-git-repo/. This is > my pretend/proposed separate repo for a "staging area" of web > stuff. I think it would live as > git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond-web.git > but that's kind-of up to the Savannah crew. (other projects have > multiple repos; we'd do whatever they normally do for multiple > repos)
I noticed those projects on Savannah gitweb that have multiple repos too, and I think this would be an appropriate location for the "staging area", as you say. > Details are in the ADD-TO-CG.txt file, but as a brief summary: > - nobody edits texinfo files in this repo. They are imported > via scripts/update-imported.sh from the > unstable/current/head/master lilypond branch. > (currently the URL points to web-gop because the texinfo files > aren't in master yet) Sounds fine to me. > - the website can be built without lilypond, or even texinfo > installed. All it needs it texi2html (perl). Yes. > I believe this satisfies a number of requirements: > - we have a set of integrated docs for tarballs (i.e. > lilypond-general.texi -> lilypond.texi in the main branch) > - normal contributors can easily work on website text > (i.e. Jonathan could add another famous lilypond performance > to our Introductions->Productions page (on master) without > changing branches/repos) > - normal users cannot screw up the official, uploaded, web page. > (a dedicated developer needs to import the latest changes from > master and review them, before pushing them to the lilypond-web > repo) > Yes, this introduces a slight delay -- after Jonathan adds the > performance, somebody (possibly even him) needs to review that > change in the separate branch. But I think that's an > acceptable delay; we won't have many time-critical issues. I think these are all reasonable ideas. It definitely seems "safer" having the website text integrated with the docs as well as in a separate repo (where the changes are finalized). It sounds a little like the "review" process we are using for big patches in the LilyPond source. Any sort of review process related to the web site sounds like a good idea, IMO. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
