[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposal for doc+web sources

From: John Mandereau
Subject: Re: proposal for doc+web sources
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:45:35 +0200

Le jeudi 16 juillet 2009 à 04:46 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:30:56AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> > I assume you mean Documentation.
> No; I really want to rename that dir.  I've wanted to rename it
> since I first got involved in lilypond.  Typing shift-d has been
> bugging me for the past 6 years, and I want it gone.  :)
> I'm assuming that this is easy in git, and that a "git mv" will
> keep the history, not produce conflicts, etc.

Ah, then just do it yourself, I don't want to take the responsability
for this nor the effort to make it work (including GUB and
translations).  Have you realized that it will make browsing Git history
more difficult and require hackery in translation checking scripts to
follow old history of files from docs/ to Documentation?  We have this
problem for input/texidocs, but these files are recent and much smaller
than the manuals, and the benefit of merging Snippets into Documentation
is much greater on the long term.  Well, all this probably means
Documentation won't be renamed. Sorry for the disappointment. After all,
it's not that bugging to type shift-d then TAB :-)

> Definitely; "info lilypond" should give you the website (or
> whatever parts thereof are present in the main repo)
> Every manual contains a line like this:
>   @setfilename
> so I assume it's easy to change.

I hope so.

> It's impossible to miss, as is
> INSTALL.txt in the tarball, so the masocists that want to compile
> from source can still find their instructions.

Do you mean that all packagers are masocists? :-)

> I think this is met by my later proposal to keep a separate web/
> repo, but to not edit the texinfo sources on that branch.  That
> way, no lilypond snippet compiling will be necessary to build the
> website, so the hourly build will be fine.

If no Texinfo/ly compilation is done on web branch, then there should be
no Texinfo/ly source on web. I assume you mean this.

> Of course, the split-repo thing brings back a bunch of trickery to
> get references working. :(

Not necessarily (see my next paragraph).

> I'm not certain we want to require an active internet connection.
> If we have an "imported read-only" directory in the web repo (just
> like our current input/lsr/ is an "imported read-only"
> directory... read-only by policy, not technically read-only) then
> we can still build it offline.  As long as somebody updates the
> imported read-only dir from time to time.
> (just like the LSR editor updates input/lsr/ from time to time)

I'm against recording HTML ouptut and/or a bunch of generated
PNG/SVG/EPS images of music in web repository: this will clutter history
a lot. It would be cool if server could accept daily upload
of a docs snapshot, which would be used to build the web site. I think
the part built on can be trimmed down to HTML fragments
that will be inserted into the already compiled site (e.g. download
pages that urrently live in site/install/v2.x.ihtml).

> I agree with a split between temporal and atemporal, altough could
> we call it "variable and permenant" or something like that?  It's
> confusing when I try to skim emails about {'','a'}temporal at
> 4:46am.  :)

OK, although I've already read "temporal" in books on concurrency,
"atemporal" may be kind of a Frenchism :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]