Re: mergin web/ with master/

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

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 'too much'.

Developers do not need to get the web pages, translators
do not need to get all of lily?

> I propose that we merge this with the main branch.
> 
> PRO:
> + one less branch/repo to track

What is it that bothers you tracking an additional repo?
What kind of setup are you using, are you using emacs eg?

> + easier to fix typos in the web pages

I do not understand this.  Why is that?  I "fear" that it's getting
easier to create "tainted" commits, ie, commits that do a bugfix
in lily, typo in web, etc.  Ideally, a commit does exactly one
thing (so it can be backported, or reverted if necessary, with
more predictable consequences).

> + we can direct everybody to look at the CG (no more README in the
> newweb/ branch)

Why cannot README's info be moved to the CG now?

Wouldn't this imply, however, that developers must read/skip through
translator's info and vice versa?

> + allows better integration with the other docs (this is more a
> post-GOP feature)

This may be a deciding argument, however.  Can you elaborate on
this?

> CON:
> - adds 30 megs to the main branch (including the .git dir)

No problem.  However, it adds 1Gb to the translator's download.
Isn't that one of the biggest cons?

> - makes translations harder?  (maybe?  ... I don't know if this is
>   true, but IMO this is the only real reason to avoid doing this)

probably.  moreover, I feel translators need more consideration
than developers, esp. if we want to have real good translators
(ie, not programmers who think they can translate)?

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl    | http://lilypond.org