Il giorno lun, 25/06/2012 alle 12.31 +0100, Phil Holmes ha scritto: > Yes, that directory exists. Good point. perhaps the best name would be > /build/Documentation/snippet-src?
What about $(top-build-dir)/Documentation/snippets/out? (read $(top-build-dir) as "build/" if you prefer) > The same way - with a snippets/new list, where these over-write the snippets > from the tarball. We may need to consider some other name changes here. > Clearly the simplest way to create an updated git/Documentation/snippets > directory is a simple delete of the old one, and a copy of the docs snippet > tarball over to git/Documentation/snippets. However, this would also wipe > out git/Documentation/snippets/new, which would be a Bad Thing. What about > an empty directory called git/Documentation/snippets, one with updated > non-LSR-runnable snippets called git/Documentation/snippets/new, and one > with the snippets from the tarball in called git/Documentation/snippet-src? I don't think creating a new directory is convenient w.r.t. following changes by translators; would it be enough to have copies of snippets from LSR tarball in Documentation/snippets, and have what we currently have in Documentation/snippets in $(top-build-dir)/Documentation/snippets/out? > I think the translators would disagree with [2] and on inspecting the > mechanism, it seems over-complex. We are not going to simplify the mechanism much, but at least get away with current committish update crazyness. After having followed the this discussion, I bet a small patch (< 50 lines of make and python) is enough to solve this issue. May I go ahead, i.e. is there agreement on solving this? Cheers, John _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
