Re: Doc CG 6.1: Add caveat on website work (issue 315130043 by address@hidden)

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mer 7 dic 2016 alle 8:01, Graham Percival 
<address@hidden> ha scritto:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:03:28PM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >  On 12/5/16 10:28 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Graham Percival"
> >  <address@hidden on behalf of
> >  address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >  >The website *is* tied to the documentation.  That decision was
> >  >made in 2009, and the reasons are just as valid today.

What does it mean? That website and documentation must be generated 
with the same tool?
Which are the valid reasons for this?

> >  I believe you when you say this.  But I am having a hard time 
> > finding a
> >  record of the decision.  I expected to find it in the CG under
> >  Administrative Policies or under Website work.  I couldn't find it 
> > either
> >  place.  Can you help me find a pointer to the discussion and/or the
> >  decision rationale?
>
> Good question, and I still don't have a good answer.  This was
> before we started keeping records of any decisions.  The earliest
> I found was this:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-12/msg00574.html
> which didn't spark a whole lot of discussion.  The current website
> didn't start to become visible until late 2009.

Well, I cannot help quoting Reinhold enthusiasm about working on 
texi2html:

 Phew, thank god you are not asking me to write another .init file for
 texi2html! I don't have many hairs left, so pulling out my hair is no 
option
 ;-)

from:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-12/msg00596.html

You can imagine the enthusiasm of those coming afterwards...

> I had a vague memory of a much more in-depth discussion, but
> perhaps that was sometime in 2010 or 2011.  I'll continue to trawl
> through the archives to see if there's more info.

I don't think that links to previous discussions are _so_ important.
I'd be curious to know the valid reasons.