Re: CM 1.1 git question

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:53:06PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > 1.  git-clone gets the entire repo, not just the particular
> > branch that you want.
> 
> Indeed, but as Git is pretty efficient, simplicity beats correctness here.

What if a newbie wants to fix some typos in the English docs, work
on translations, and possibly translate the website?  That's three
branches.

> > 2.  We don't want newbies switching between branches, because
> > (speaking from experience) that wastes 1-5 hours of frustrating
> > time-wasting when you're just trying to work on lilypond.
> 
> I agree.  Before you understand the ways branches can split at a common 
> commit and come together again at a merge commit (and all kinds of weird 
> criss-cross merge scenarios), this is more than just confusing.

Yes.

Given my understanding of the situation, the current system (where
users copy&paste 4 or 5 lines of totally cryptic commands and
possibly see some warning messages, but end up with a working
setup) is the best for people working on individual branches in
individual directories.  People understand directories.  :)

I'm totally open to changing these cut&paste command blocks, but
I'm not certain that git clone is the best way to go, especially
for the case of a translator who notices typos.  git clone may be
efficient, but efficient enough to store three separate clones of
the same repo?  Especially when one (the web/ branch) is a tiny
fraction of the sizes of the other two (master/ and
lilypond/translate/ ).

Cheers,
- Graham