Re: mergin web/ with master/

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 6/5/09 12:18 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> 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, separation.

But I'm OK to move in this direction; I'm ambivalent, personally.
> 
> 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 integration with the other docs (this is more a
> post-GOP feature)
> 
> CON:
> - adds 30 megs to the main branch (including the .git dir)
> - makes translations harder?  (maybe?  ... I don't know if this is
>   true, but IMO this is the only real reason to avoid doing this)
> 

Another con might be that those who might be willing to work on the web but
who don't have a git repo of the source would need a much bigger git repo
(i.e. all of LilyPond, instead of just the web).

> 
> 
> If we agree with this proposal, then we'll be left with:
> lilypond repo
> . master branch
>    . individual testing branches

Do we need all of the individual testing branches?  I'm fairly certain that
the csorensen branch is useless.  I think the original idea behind the
csorensen branch was that I would make changes and push them to that branch,
then somebody else would cherry-pick the changes.  I think that that model
for fixing things has been replaced.  We now have the git-cl means of having
patches reviewed and then pushed; perhaps we don't need the individual
branches?

Thanks,

Carl