Re: mergin web/ with master/

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

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 pushing?  Is
>    git push origin
> ok, or should it be
>    git push
> ?  (I just checked, and "git push" works... but is that the _best_
> option?)

origin should not be necessary.

> The initial setup isn't really a problem

but it is.  You said it yourself: John and I have told
each other "I don't have newweb/ right now".  If lilypond-web
were a single repo, and git came initialized in a sane way,
ie, with the gnu: alias, then

   git clone --depth=1 gnu:lilypond-web

is less than 10sec away?  It is the facts that cloning
it takes very long and/or has a mantra that you cannot
remember, that make it easier to ask someone else than
getting it.  I think.

> We recommend (and I follow) putting lilypond, web, and
> lilypond/translations in separate directories.

Of course.  Another reason for web to be in a separate
repo (or to make it a simple directory Documentation/web).

> Basically, the entire CG-git stuff is modeled around the idea that
> we want contributors working on lilypond stuff (docs,
> translations, bugfixes), *not* working on understanding git stuff.

Yes, but that's one of the reasons that the choice for
[the speed of] git still comes with a price.

> Unless we specifically say "ok, X, you're now in charge of fixing
> typos on the website", X is very likely to say "nah, I'm not going
> to bother fixing this typo report; I'll let somebody else handle
> it".
> 
> I know this very well, since I've been X at least half the time.
> :)

Yes, that's unfortunate.  Both the general observation and the
equation graham==X.  I suppose we should work on changing both :-)

> The actual experiments would be done on a separate branch -- but
> only the initial experiments.  Basically, I want to:
> - merge web/ and master/
> - copy the new master/ into gop/

Do I understand these steps to be something like [the just tested
over here]

    git checkout -b web-gop origin/web
    mkdir -p Documentation/web 
    mv .gitignore * Documentation/web/
    git add .   # watch out for any crufty in . moved to web/ :-)
    git add -u .
    git commit -m 'Prepare web for merge, move into Documentation/web.'
    git checkout -b gop origin/master
    git merge web-gop

?  There's one thing that still bothers me about this, we'd
need to declare Documentation/web 'dead' for branches
other than master, eg, stable/2.12, whereas the rest of
Documentation/ would not be dead in stable/2.12.  Would
this be a problem?
   
> - work on gop/ for 3-4 weeks
> - merge gop/ to master, then delete gop/
> 
> In the long term, we would only have a single master/ branch, plus
> the various temporary/private development branches.

Okay.

> (yes, something would happen to gub-samco and lilypad-macos).

*poof* gub-samco is gone :-)  Han-Wen needs to move lilypad-macos.

> I'm also not saying that a certain amount of upfront difficulty is
> a *bad* thing.  Somebody could make the argument that if a
> potential contributor isn't willing to learn texinfo + git +
> making functional diffs + our policies, then they don't have the
> dedication to be a good contributor anyway.
> 
> I'm *not* making this argument myself.  Rather, I'd say that if
> somebody can't figure out the CG -- as long as we make the
> repositories, branches, and CG as easy to follow as possible --
> then they probably would not be a net contributor.  But if I'm
> going to feel good about rejecting (apparently) sincere offers of
> help, then I want to be maoing certain that the CG (and git repos,
> branches, etc) **are** as easy to follow as possible.

Yes, quite agree.

Greetings,
Jan.

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