Re: the "separate, but integrated" website proposal

[Patrick McCarty]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:13:12PM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> My apologies for being unclear in the past.  (and my advanced
> apologies for being unclear in the future, although hopefully I
> won't be unclear about this specific issue)
> 
> The web-gop branch now contains lilypond-web-git-repo/.  This is
> my pretend/proposed separate repo for a "staging area" of web
> stuff.  I think it would live as
>   git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond-web.git
> but that's kind-of up to the Savannah crew.  (other projects have
> multiple repos; we'd do whatever they normally do for multiple
> repos)

I noticed those projects on Savannah gitweb that have multiple repos
too, and I think this would be an appropriate location for the
"staging area", as you say.

> Details are in the ADD-TO-CG.txt file, but as a brief summary:
> - nobody edits texinfo files in this repo.  They are imported
>   via scripts/update-imported.sh from the
>   unstable/current/head/master lilypond branch.
>   (currently the URL points to web-gop because the texinfo files
>   aren't in master yet)

Sounds fine to me.

> - the website can be built without lilypond, or even texinfo
>   installed.  All it needs it texi2html (perl).

Yes.

> I believe this satisfies a number of requirements:
> - we have a set of integrated docs for tarballs (i.e.
>   lilypond-general.texi -> lilypond.texi in the main branch)
> - normal contributors can easily work on website text
>   (i.e. Jonathan could add another famous lilypond performance
>   to our Introductions->Productions page (on master) without
>   changing branches/repos)
> - normal users cannot screw up the official, uploaded, web page.
>   (a dedicated developer needs to import the latest changes from
>   master and review them, before pushing them to the lilypond-web
>   repo)
>   Yes, this introduces a slight delay -- after Jonathan adds the
>   performance, somebody (possibly even him) needs to review that
>   change in the separate branch.  But I think that's an
>   acceptable delay; we won't have many time-critical issues.

I think these are all reasonable ideas.  It definitely seems "safer"
having the website text integrated with the docs as well as in a
separate repo (where the changes are finalized).

It sounds a little like the "review" process we are using for big
patches in the LilyPond source.  Any sort of review process related to
the web site sounds like a good idea, IMO.


Thanks,
Patrick