On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:38:19AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 3/4/11 11:09 AM, "Colin Campbell" <c...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > On 11-03-04 10:54 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > >> On 3/4/11 10:31 AM, "Colin Campbell"<c...@shaw.ca> wrote: > >>
[subject: wiki or not?] > >>> I'm the noob here, so I'll defer to greater wisdom. Ok, for the record: we're still gathering opinions about wiki vs. CG. The most important opinions come from the people offering to actually do the work, of course. So far, that means Colin and Phil. > >> My preference would be to have an issue on google code, with a priority of > >> low, under which one-time users could post their experiences. Please no. We'll be gathering approximately 15 pdf-pages of docs; having that amount of info as a series of comments on google code wouldn't work. (unless I'm misunderstanding this comment...?) > >> I'd prefer *not* to put patches for the CG on Rietveld; I'd rather just see > >> them pushed. I think there's no sense discussing them at this point. > >> Better just to capture them. Yes, absolutely. > >> The main difficulty I see with Graham's original proposed workflow is that > >> not everybody has git push access, so we need somebody who will volunteer > >> to > >> push patches from those without access. I was going to dump them all on James. It'll be a good learning experience for him, and as long as all patches only touch the file Documentation/contributor/build-notes.itexi , nobody else needs to care if anything goes wrong. (as long as the docs can still compile, at least). > The proposal was to start by documenting what the build system > does. And he estimated that the documentation process would > take 50 hours of development time. Yes. > But I don't think that project needs any visibility on frogs -- > it's way over the head of frogs. Anybody who is contributing to > build system revision is clearly a developer, IMO. Yes and no. The only two volunteers so far clearly *are* Frogs. My other big qualm is the amount of work I'll be putting in, and the resulting inefficiencies. For better or worse, I think that I know more about the doc+web build process than anybody else. I would not be surprised if I could describe (+ learn if necessary) the build process 10 times faster than Colin and/or Phil. I'm not trying to brag here about me being fast at learning -- it's not that at all! This is simply because I spent most of Fall 2009 spending 40+ hours a week working on lilypond, most of which was on the build process. I've already spent dozens of hours puzzling through bits and pieces of the build system. However, I am now absolutely committed to 10 hours a week for the duration of my PhD. And almost all that time is already accounted for. This means that it is extremely likely that Phil and/or Colin will spent 5+ hours trying to figure out something that I could explain in a 10-minute email. I can't think of a good solution, though. It sucks, but that's life? I refuse to budge on my allocated time; my PhD has already suffered enough from my LilyPond work. Other than suggesting that "if something seems really puzzling, stop and ask Graham a quick question", I can't think of a way to alleviate this problem. Oh, there _is_ one way: if more people took on more of my current duties, I'd have more time left in my 10 hours, and could thus spend more time helping this process. The biggest/easiest time sink for me right now is checking and bestowing Patch-review labels on issues: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/patch-handling If anybody thinks they can handle that -- all you need is to compile the source! -- then I could be a bit more flexible with my time. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
