[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: the "separate, but integrated" website proposal

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: the "separate, but integrated" website proposal
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 06:50:19 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:53:51PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le mardi 04 août 2009 à 05:20 -0700, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > But we don't require them for building the website on
> >
> Inkscape *is* required for building current web site from web branch
> sources.

But it's not required for the new web stuff.  At least, it's not
required for the "demonstration-of-concept" dir in web-gop.

> As for lilypond, you have pressed for merging web branch into
> the main source tree, so I assume docs include website, which means in
> particular that lilypond will be available for building ly files.

In the past, I pressed for merging the web into the main source
tree.  After a bit more experience with web-gop, I proposed the
"separate, but integrated" web branch.  I still think the texinfo
editing should be on master, but I think that having a separate
repo that doesn't require lilypond to create the website would be
a good idea.

I'm not at all certain that the owners of want us
building lilypond there -- especially if we'd expect to build it
(locally) for every stable release.

> >   Do you think we should abandon the hourly cron job?
> > Honestly, that always struck me as a bit unnecessary; I wouldn't
> > mind running a shell script to rsync a new website every few days.
> Agreed.  This is heavier for people that have access to,
> but OTOH this will avoid bugging you, Jan or Han-Wen on uploading
> generated images from SVG for example.

... err, what does the "agreed" refer to?  Were you agreeing that
we shouldn't use an hourly cron job?  Agreeing that we shouldn't
do any website building on, and instead I would build
the website locally and rsync whenever I felt like it?  This won't
"avoid bugging" me.

> > Err, if we kept those 13 png files in git, the contributor
> > wouldn't need to run "make generate-examples".
> But the innocent contributor would ask, "I updated the ly source", or
> the impatient developer that updated an example would pester again "make
> doc" not rebuilding the examples.  I know both categories of people are
> expected to read the CG, but let's not bug them unnecessarily with warts
> like generated examples in sources.

- we don't expect people to be changing those examples.
- if they do, it will be so rare that I feel no worry whatsoever
  in telling them to read the CG.

> > Eh?  Why on earth would the Examples change for different
> > languages?  IIRC, we currently have French lyrics, Italian musical
> > terms, German titles, Italian lyrics, an English instrument name,
> > Italian instrument names, a Hungarian (?) title, Italian titles,
> > some English lyrics and directions... if there was ever part of
> > the docs that we could say "yeah, we really don't need any
> > translations here", it would be the pngs on
> > Introduction->Examples.
> I was thinking on annotated SVG examples, which should be created for
> the essay BTW -- I believed Till had taken this over a while ago, but I
> never got news about this.

Do you mean the annotated SVGs in web->Introduction->Text input?

> I have given enough justifications so that web site examples will be
> generated from ly sources.  As long as I'll have something to do  with
> docs building (which is until somebody can and is willing to take over
> the translations management), I won't allow generated images from Ly
> sources that are or could be present in the source tree,

Ok, it's up to you.  I still think it's not worth the effort
involved, but it's up to you.

Provided that doesn't need to build, or run,
lilypond.  If that means that I need to manually rsync an examples
dir and/or the complete website, so be it.

- Graham

reply via email to

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