On 3/4/11 10:31 AM, "Colin Campbell"<address@hidden> wrote:
On 11-03-04 05:55 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
<address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes"<address@hidden>
Cc: "Lily devel"<address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: build system work
On 3/4/11, Phil Holmes<address@hidden> wrote:
I'm wondering whether we should actually start with a real Wiki -
like the
one used for the regtests. Doing this would mean that any work done
would
be immediately visible, rather than having to pull git and make
docs, which
would save me oodles of time (a technical phrase).
I dislike wikis; it's yet one more markup format to learn, I can't
easily edit them with my normal text editor, they rely on having an
internet connection, there's no permanent record, and they don't fit
into the current development skills used for lilypond. Also, once
you've built the docs once -- and if there's no build system changes
from the translations -- then rebuilding the CG is really fast, since
the CG doesn't include any @lilypond example.
However, if you and Colin would find it easier to work on a wiki, then
by all means do so. There's no point adding artificial constraints to
this task; it's hard enough as it is. But please move material into
the CG from time to time (say, once a month?), otherwise we'll lose
whatever documentation you two write.
I'll wait for Colin's thoughts.
I'm the noob here, so I'll defer to greater wisdom. A couple of
thoughts do occur, though: using the CG to collect discoveries, insights
etc. has the virtues Graham points out, those of permanence and use of
existing technologies, but it risks limiting contributions from those
who don't build docs more than once. A wiki has the advantage of
possibly wider input and access, but requires separate infrastructure.
As a somewhat in between approach, I think we should try to keep the
discussion visible to the devels and Frogs as much as possible, so they
can feel free to chime in. That suggests a special subject line on
postings to -devel, or perhaps a separate list (Google group?), with
filters on local e-maiul clients, if desired. Patches can go to
reitveld, again with a special subject line. Work would be done in a
new branch of the git repo. Perhaps Phil would take the lead on the
project, and coordinate updates to the CG and git master.
My preference would be to have an issue on google code, with a priority of
low, under which one-time users could post their experiences.
I'd prefer *not* to put patches for the CG on Rietveld; I'd rather just see
them pushed. I think there's no sense discussing them at this point.
Better just to capture them.
I don't think we need a different branch. We have a different section in
the CG, so this won't mess up master. By putting the changes in master,
they'll automatically build daily on kainhofer, so if we have some who don't
have build capability on their machines, they can still see updated docs.
The main difficulty I see with Graham's original proposed workflow is that
not everybody has git push access, so we need somebody who will volunteer to
push patches from those without access.
Thanks,