Re: build system work

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/4/11 10:31 AM, "Colin Campbell" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 11-03-04 05:55 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
>> <address@hidden>
>> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
>> Cc: "Lily devel" <address@hidden>
>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: build system work
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3/4/11, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I'm wondering whether we should actually start with a real Wiki -
>>>> like the
>>>> one used for the regtests.  Doing this would mean that any work done
>>>> would
>>>> be immediately visible, rather than having to pull git and make
>>>> docs, which
>>>> would save me oodles of time (a technical phrase).
>>> 
>>> I dislike wikis; it's yet one more markup format to learn, I can't
>>> easily edit them with my normal text editor, they rely on having an
>>> internet connection, there's no permanent record, and they don't fit
>>> into the current development skills used for lilypond.  Also, once
>>> you've built the docs once -- and if there's no build system changes
>>> from the translations -- then rebuilding the CG is really fast, since
>>> the CG doesn't include any @lilypond example.
>>> 
>>> However, if you and Colin would find it easier to work on a wiki, then
>>> by all means do so.  There's no point adding artificial constraints to
>>> this task; it's hard enough as it is.  But please move material into
>>> the CG from time to time (say, once a month?), otherwise we'll lose
>>> whatever documentation you two write.
>> 
>> 
>> I'll wait for Colin's thoughts.
>> 
> 
> I'm the noob here, so I'll defer to greater wisdom.  A couple of
> thoughts do occur, though: using the CG to collect discoveries, insights
> etc. has the virtues Graham points out, those of permanence and use of
> existing technologies, but it risks limiting contributions from those
> who don't build docs more than once. A wiki has the advantage of
> possibly wider input and access, but requires separate infrastructure.
> As a somewhat in between approach, I think we should try to keep the
> discussion visible to the devels and Frogs as much as possible, so they
> can feel free to chime in.  That suggests a special subject line on
> postings to -devel, or perhaps a separate list (Google group?), with
> filters on local e-maiul clients, if desired.  Patches can go to
> reitveld, again with a special subject line.  Work would be done in a
> new branch of the git repo. Perhaps Phil would take the lead on the
> project, and coordinate updates to the CG and git master.

My preference would be to have an issue on google code, with a priority of
low, under which one-time users could post their experiences.

I'd prefer *not* to put patches for the CG on Rietveld; I'd rather just see
them pushed.  I think there's no sense discussing them at this point.
Better just to capture them.

I don't think we need a different branch.  We have a different section in
the CG, so this won't mess up master.  By putting the changes in master,
they'll automatically build daily on kainhofer, so if we have some who don't
have build capability on their machines, they can still see updated docs.

The main difficulty I see with Graham's original proposed workflow is that
not everybody has git push access, so we need somebody who will volunteer to
push patches from those without access.

Thanks,

Carl