On 10/06/2012 05:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
As you say, compile-edit-compile cycles are shorter than the full build, but can occasionally not reveal errors, so for a proper test it's always better to nuke the build directory and rebuild from scratch.
Out of curiosity, what kind of errors? I imagine stuff involving cross-references, the index, etc.?
And given the amount of effort involved in all this, using git-cl seems a small additional step.
It's not too much if you've already got the hang of Git, if you're relatively experienced with development tools etc. But all of that feels a bit much if all you want to do is submit a small doc update and you're not a regular contributor.
I'm not demanding a solution here, but I don't think Janek's suggestion should be dismissed. I think that David has it right when he says the best way to handle code and the best way to handle documentation are not necessarily the same, and personally I think the git-cl/Rietveld approach is too slanted towards code requirements.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
