[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: improving the CG
From: |
Trevor Daniels |
Subject: |
Re: improving the CG |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:44:43 -0000 |
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:18 PM
I like this idea, but I'm not certain if we all have the same
idea. Here's the idea that I like:
1. introduction
1.1 help us: duplicate material from website
1.2 summary for unix developers: 2-3 paragraphs. We use git, the
docs are in git and generated with texinfo, we use google issue
tracker, more details later in this manual, full stop.
1.3 summary for other contributors: 1-1.5 pages; the introduction
that Mark has already written.
I'd be happy with this
Speaking of focus, I'm getting a bit concerned about feature
creep. My initial reaction is that anything that would be
appropriate to have in a separate appendix about git could be
replaced with "To learn more about XYZ, see the git documentation
or one of the many git tutorials".
In general I'd agree with you, but I remember the
difficulty I had with understanding the git concepts
initially. The individual command manuals are
useless for this, and I failed to find a tutorial
that helped much (and in general I don't find it
difficult to pick up new stuff). A page or so
to clearly explain the concepts and the simple
forms of the essential commands seems well worth
while to get enthusiastic potential contributors
moving up.
The lilycontrib script has released a *huge* amount of pressure on
the git stuff in the CG. The biggest hurdle that new contributors
faced was git; now that people (especially non-technical doc
writers and translators) can do all their gitting with literally
three clicks, I think it's time to look at who's left: technical
people who want to do fancier stuff.
Plus the people who want to move on to the fancier
stuff, but lack the background knowledge.
[snip]
As far as I know, all the lilypond developers apart from me have
read various git documentation or tutorials, and they seem to be
doing just fine with it.
But the CG isn't aimed at the existing lilypond
developers, it's to try to avoid _potential_ developers
dropping out early because they're frustrated. OK, a
few of us have made it to the other side, but it
wasn't easy. In my case it needed a lot of persistence
and an awful lot of screen-gazing time. It still does,
although the barrier now is LilyPond's internal workings.
The easier this path is the greater will be the number of
potential developers who stay the course, and the quicker
they'll become effective.
Let's give them all the help we can.
Trevor
- Re: improving the CG, (continued)
Re: improving the CG, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/19
Re: improving the CG, Mark Polesky, 2009/12/19
Re: improving the CG, Mark Polesky, 2009/12/25
Re: improving the CG, Trevor Daniels, 2009/12/26
Re: improving the CG, Graham Percival, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, Carl Sorensen, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, Ian Hulin, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, John Mandereau, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, Graham Percival, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, John Mandereau, 2009/12/26
- Re: improving the CG, Graham Percival, 2009/12/26