Re: CG addition about Git pulling

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:21:06AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > I think everybody liked the idea of the intro chapter,
> > even if there's slight uncertainty over one section of it
> > (i.e.  lily-git).  Let's get the part(s) that everybody
> > agrees with done.
> 
> Okay, I've attached a patch that adds an intro.  Still
> unfinished but perhaps it's worth adding as it is.  I've
> also started a `Git commands for developers' node, though I
> don't yet know where to put it.

I don't know what you're trying to do with this "git commands for
developers".  If anything, I'd say those commands are better for
non-developers.

In any case, that would go in the git chapter, so that's a
separate issue from this.

>  Documentation/contributor.texi                     |    2 +
>  Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi       |   84 
> ++++++++++++++++++++

Please push those.

> address@hidden Graham wrote:
> address@hidden The intro should contain the "help us" material from web/,
> address@hidden quite possibly as the very first thing.  This requires
> address@hidden having a macro for it, which depends on issue 939.  James
> address@hidden said that he might take a look at it, but it's a bit
> address@hidden complicated for a new contributor.

... John's going to laugh about this, but oh well.  Add a big
FIXME there, though, please, so that it'll definitely get fixed
before 2.14.

> address@hidden For unix developers
> address@hidden For unix developers
> +
> +
> address@hidden make a `Git for developers' appendix?

No; just dump a two-paragraph introduction to lilypond.  "We use
git.  The docs are generated from texinfo.  Send patches to
lilypond-devel.  If you're planning a large patch, ask for some
guidance first in case you're going about it wrong."

... ok, that was 4 sentences, not two paragraphs.  whatever.  Just
get something in there; if we need to add more later, we can add
it.

Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  Just get
something in there.

> address@hidden Is this helpful or just redundant? :
> +
> address@hidden To put it simply, if you only want to use the program, you only
> address@hidden need to install it.  If you want to modify source files and
> address@hidden create patches for development, then you need a Git repository
> address@hidden (technically you don't even need an installed copy of the
> address@hidden program, but it helps).  But if you want modify source files
> address@hidden and see how your changes affect the finished product, then
> address@hidden you'll need a Git repository @emph{and} you'll need to compile
> address@hidden the program on your own.

Sorry, I have a train to catch, so I'm not going to read/think
about it yet.  Just push it, and we can look at it later.

Cheers,
- Graham