Re: proposal for doc+web sources

[John Mandereau]

I'd like to start working on the plan below real soon now so it can be
finished by the end of August; if it isn't I might have no time to
complete this within a year.

Le samedi 11 juillet 2009 à 03:21 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit : 
> docs/
> docs/learning.tely
> docs/learning/*.itely
> docs/notation.tely
> docs/notation/*.itely
> + glossary, essay, application
> 
> docs/snippets.tely    (moved from input/lsr/ and input/new/)
> docs/snippets/*.ly
> 
> docs/contributors.texi
> docs/contributors/*.texi
> 
> docs/web.texi
> docs/web/*.itexi
> 
> docs/topdocs/
> docs/topdocs/changes.texi
> docs/topdocs/compile.texi

I don't see the points of keeping a subdirectory topdocs: if the
documents in this directory play a so different role from other, or
should be grouped in any way, let's put them in the same
toplevel .texi/.tely document.

Putting this issue aside, what I propose is

Documentation
|
|- web.tely -> lilypond
|
|- learning.tely -> lilypond-learning
|- notation.tely -> lilypond-notation 
\- ...idem for glossary, essay, application, snippet, devel, changes, authors


> regression/   new location of input/regressions/
> input/        completely deleted

Unlike the overhaul of documention structure, I don't see what we gain
in renaming/removing input/regression in terms of building (makefiles)
simplification or maintenance, so I'm not keen on doing this without
stronger arguments.

About the switch to SCons we have mentioned, I think the simplification
to be brought to the Documentation makefiles makes me feel this switch
not so useful as I used to think, i.e. I consider dropping this for more
than one year.

Unless there are objections, I'll start applying this plan by moving the
three manuals and snippets very soon.

Cheers,
John

signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée