On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Graham
Percival wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:07:30AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> The docs are specific to a given lilypond version, and should
>> therefore always be part of the main branch that contains the code.
>> The website is a a living 'document'
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:07:30AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> The docs are specific to a given lilypond version, and should
> therefore always be part of the main branch that contains the code.
> The website is a a living 'document' that talks about several lilypond
> versions, and that chang
Sorry for cutting in so late on this topic.
I am not sure what problem this proposal is trying to solve. I am
against the idea of putting the website in the main code branch, for
the following reason:
The docs are specific to a given lilypond version, and should
therefore always be part of the ma
Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 10:00 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> What do you mean by "dead"? If you mean "not being updated", then
> stable/2.12 isn't being updated anyway.
[checking]
$ git log release/2.12.2-1..origin/stable/2.12
10:03:54 jann...@peder:~/vc/lilypond-2.12
Graham Percival a écrit :
What's the problem with distributing the website source? I can't
imagine this being technically challenging, and I don't think
there's any security issues...?
And what about copyright? If we distribute the website, Han-Wen and Jan
should decide redistribution cond
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:18:41AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> fortunately, the involved changes in makefiles should not be
> too tricky... except for modifying "dist" target: it is
> problematic to release Lily sources with the website, so
> docs/web/ should be excluded from this target.
Wha
Hi guys,
Graham Percival a écrit :
Eventually, I'd like to have
docs/
docs/web/
docs/learning/
docs/reference/
docs/devel/
docs/snippets/
docs/examples/ (maybe)
with the approporiate translation files in each subdir.
John, if you're reading this: don't worry, I'm going to do
On 6/5/09 12:18 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
> I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
I thought that the previous discussion was actually to separate the web from
the source, i.e., more, rather than less, separati
Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 03:14 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
What is it that bothers you tracking an additional repo?
To be up-to-date, I need to do a "git pull origin"
You should only
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 03:09:48PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 05:08 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
> Percival:
>
> > The actual experiments would be done on a separate branch -- but
> > only the initial experiments. Basically, I want to:
> > - merge web/ and
Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 05:08 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> That would have been very useful to know six months ago, when I
> wrote the first draft of the CG and asked everybody to check it.
..didn't know about this then, I'm not much of a git guru.
> What should we do for p
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 01:34:42PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 03:14 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
> Percival:
>
> > > What is it that bothers you tracking an additional repo?
> >
> > To be up-to-date, I need to do a "git pull origin"
>
> You should only n
Op zaterdag 06-06-2009 om 03:14 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> Translators *do* need to get all of lily. At least, they need to
> get the docs (they translate this after the webpages, right?).
That's a good point. I was thinking, translation of docs is
an exception, but that'
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op vrijdag 05-06-2009 om 11:18 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
> Percival:
>
> > Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
>
> Branch is not helpful, a separate repo has the advantage of
> allowing a
Op vrijdag 05-06-2009 om 11:18 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Graham
Percival:
> Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
Branch is not helpful, a separate repo has the advantage of
allowing a simple 'git clone' (like it's meant to be)
to get either one, without getting 't
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Graham
Percival wrote:
> Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
> I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
>
> PRO:
> + one less branch/repo to track
> + easier to fix typos in the web pages
> + we can direct everybody to look at
2009/6/5 Graham Percival :
> Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
> I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
That's a bit surprising because IIRC it has been told to separate it
completely into another place.
> CON:
> - adds 30 megs to the main branch (inclu
Do we need a separate branch (or even repository) for web/ stuff?
I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
PRO:
+ one less branch/repo to track
+ easier to fix typos in the web pages
+ we can direct everybody to look at the CG (no more README in the
newweb/ branch)
+ allows better integr
18 matches
Mail list logo
