Le mardi 04 août 2009 à 05:06 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> Look, I was sole maintainer of the docs for 4 years. A few times,
> I took a look at the build process because I wanted something or
> other changed. Each time, I abandoned the idea after a few hours,
> because I was getting nowhere
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:22:02PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le lundi 03 août 2009 à 05:57 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > They complicate the build process
> > even more.
>
> I'm not sure what this means, but it's hard to scare me with the build
> process.
That's the biggest thing th
Le lundi 03 août 2009 à 05:57 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> ok, I'm willing to go as far as adding a single "View sources"
> link at the bottom of the page, which takes people to a
> Snippets->Examples page. Of course, that would require adding the
> Examples to LSR (or at least new/), requir
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 07:51:46PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le lundi 27 juillet 2009 à 17:26 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > There are *plenty* of lilypond sources available. I really think
> > that adding complexity to the Introduction pages would not be
> > warranted.
>
> Just like
Le lundi 27 juillet 2009 à 17:26 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> There are *plenty* of lilypond sources available. I really think
> that adding complexity to the Introduction pages would not be
> warranted.
Just like free software source code should be reachable from a place
where you get bin
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 08:50:38PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le lundi 27 juillet 2009 à 01:17 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > I thought we were keeping the uploaded-website on a separate
> > branch?
>
> I'm open to other proposals, but at this point I expect clearly
> defined proposals w
Le lundi 27 juillet 2009 à 01:17 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I thought we were keeping the uploaded-website on a separate
> branch?
The uploaded website is the generated website; as it's generated, it
doesn't need nor deserve to be stored in a version control system, it
should just be uploa
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:13:12PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009 à 21:46 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > I disagree; @lilypond blocks have a few problems for this case:
> > - this is a really "courageous" regression test. Ok, ideally we'd
> > never merge any pat
Le mercredi 22 juillet 2009 à 21:46 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I disagree; @lilypond blocks have a few problems for this case:
> - this is a really "courageous" regression test. Ok, ideally we'd
> never merge any patches that break any regtests, but it happens
> from time to time -- es
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:29:37AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mardi 21 juillet 2009 à 23:57 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > I still think the texinfo files should be in master, but perhaps
> > not the generated images, and not some really web-specific stuff
> > like the htaccess.
>
> I
Le mardi 21 juillet 2009 à 23:57 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> I would personally remove the web/, and have things like
> lilypond.org/introduction.html
> lilypond.org/doc/v2.x/
> lilypond.org/download/
> lilypond.org/tiny_examples.html
> along with whatever redirects are desirable.
I
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:45:28PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> I have a naive question with not so naive implications about the current
> shape of docs reorganization: what is the planned directory structure
> for the new web site?
>
> Do we want to make a clear distinction between the site and
Hi guys,
I expect comments (and even maybe votes from developers) about the
directory structure, which will very soon drive an important part of the
docs and web site reorganization (especially the makefiles and
buildscripts :-P).
I have a naive question with not so naive implications about the c
13 matches
Mail list logo
