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
Huh,
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
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 changes
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Graham
Percivalgra...@percival-music.ca 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
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
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 simple
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's
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 need
git
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
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 master/
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 6/5/09 12:18 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca 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,
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 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.
What's
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
2009/6/5 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
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
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Graham
Percivalgra...@percival-music.ca 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
