CG organization (Git)
I'm somewhat confused about the organization of the CG chapters about Git and patch review. First: 3.2.2 Git for the impatient and 3.3 Basic Git procedures share some information, and this in a somewhat confusing way. Is there a _short_ explanation what these two chapters are intended for? Second: 3.2. seems to be targeted at absolute beginners. So why does it explain the workflow with pushing to staging? Anybody who needs to read this chapter won't have commit access. I wanted to add my experiences from the review cycle to the CG, but now I'm confused and don't know _where_ to put them. Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG organization (Git)
Urs, you wrote Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:55 AM Subject: CG organization (Git) I'm somewhat confused about the organization of the CG chapters about Git and patch review. The CG has never been properly revised and reorganised, with many sections added without considering the effect on others. This was a deliberate policy to permit the easier addition of material, so ensuring it was at least captured in the manual. Maybe it's now time (during release 19) to begin this revision. In the meantime, follow the present policy and dump your offering in whichever place seems easiest or most appropriate to you. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG organization (Git)
Am 22.12.2013 10:29, schrieb Trevor Daniels: Urs, you wrote Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:55 AM Subject: CG organization (Git) I'm somewhat confused about the organization of the CG chapters about Git and patch review. The CG has never been properly revised and reorganised, with many sections added without considering the effect on others. This was a deliberate policy to permit the easier addition of material, so ensuring it was at least captured in the manual. Maybe it's now time (during release 19) to begin this revision. In the meantime, follow the present policy and dump your offering in whichever place seems easiest or most appropriate to you. Trevor OK, I'll do so. But I'm still more confused because this contradicts After a good deal of thinking, here's how i think CG should be structured. More thinking and discussion than we had the previous 4 times we reorganized the CG? from a week ago. ?? Urs ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG organization (Git)
Urs Liska wrote Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:40 AM Am 22.12.2013 10:29, schrieb Trevor Daniels: The CG has never been properly revised and reorganised, with many sections added without considering the effect on others. But I'm still more confused because this contradicts After a good deal of thinking, here's how i think CG should be structured. More thinking and discussion than we had the previous 4 times we reorganized the CG? from a week ago. Well, the previous 4 times were quite some time ago, and a lot has been added since then. Your recent questions are evidence that more consolidation is needed. Big job, though. Graham and I have both experienced it reorganising the NR. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG organization (Git)
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: I'm somewhat confused about the organization of the CG chapters about Git and patch review. First: 3.2.2 Git for the impatient and 3.3 Basic Git procedures share some information, and this in a somewhat confusing way. Is there a _short_ explanation what these two chapters are intended for? 3.2.2 was added more recently than 3.3, and was supposed to be a no fluff approach to git. Some people like more or less verbose explanations of what's happening. IMO, neither of these sections should be read by newbies, but I think that relied on the assumption that a mentor would be available. Without a mentor, we add 10+ hours to a new contributor's first patch (unless the contributor has previous experience with open-source projects). Second: 3.2. seems to be targeted at absolute beginners. So why does it explain the workflow with pushing to staging? Anybody who needs to read this chapter won't have commit access. Most of 3.2 was written before we had staging, and I think it was even before we had lily-git.tcl. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CG organization (Git)
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:40:04AM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: After a good deal of thinking, here's how i think CG should be structured. More thinking and discussion than we had the previous 4 times we reorganized the CG? from a week ago. Chapters 1 and 2 are solid (other than the bits about mentors, and possibly being out of date with respect to lilydev). The rest of the CG has decent chapters, but the material within each chapter is a mess. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
