On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:50:09AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote: > Le lundi 10 août 2009 à 01:18 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit : > > We've lost 50% of potential contributors to the website because of > > git. > > And we've lost the same percentage of potential French translators; I'm > sorry to remark that most of them who didn't spend the effort to master > Git and stopped contributing didn't spend much effort either to look for > accurate translation of musical and other technical terms, or even > respecting Texinfo format editing (I once got a translation in ODT!) > which is yet far simpler and comfortable than XML-based formats or PO.
I agree that there's a correlation between willingness to learn git and quality of work. I'm not opposed to asking contributors to jump through _some_ hurdles; I just think we don't have the right balance yet. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that we want to discourage 25% of potential contributors. > > We want people working on lilypond, not working at understanding > > git. > > Agreed. Many people are scared by just using command line, and I doubt > we'll manage to get the procedure above simpler, so the only solution is > providing another way to contribute, e.g. a web interface that is not > read-only but that allows retrieval and submission of individual files > or file sets, IIRC you or Valentin have mentioned this in the past. How would this work with, say, documentation? Would a potential contributor retrieve the "doc file set" (autogen.sh + Documentation/, potentially trimming out the translations)? I'm not eager to drop the "does it compile?" question for contributors, even for documentation. Apart from people on windows who *cannot* compile the docs, I'd still ask doc contributors to build the docs locally. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
