Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:50:56AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: > > * Reserve the savannah lilypond.git repository for logical > > branches of master. > > I've moved ikebana to > https://github.com/hanwen/ikebana > > I could also move the macos-lilypad application. However, I haven't > touched that in ages, and don't own a functioning mac anymore. Let's leave the lilypad stuff on savannah (but on a separate repository). Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > I've made a few clarifications to the original proposal, but > nothing substantial is changed. > > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html > > ** Proposal summary > > Our source code hosting is confused: some branches of lilypond > savannah are confusing and should removed, while other parts of > our source code aren’t in a repository at all! > > I propose: > > * Reserve the savannah lilypond.git repository for logical > branches of master. I've moved ikebana to https://github.com/hanwen/ikebana I could also move the macos-lilypad application. However, I haven't touched that in ages, and don't own a functioning mac anymore. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision)
2011/9/15 Janek Warchoł : > 2011/9/15 Graham Percival : >> ** Unchanged branches >> (...) >> stable/* > > I'm wondering if we can get rid of them, but i'm not sure about one > thing: are they just a point in our history, i.e. > ... (lots of commits) ...<2.x stable release commit> > ... (lots of commits) ... ? No. That looks like a tag in a branch. > Or are they true branches, i.e. not a subset of master? Yes. Branches are not subsets. They keep independent histories. > In the first case maybe we could just use git tags? (or is my question > stupid because we are already using them?) Yes we are already using them, No tags and branches do not provide similar features, and No your question is not stupid. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision)
2011/9/15 Graham Percival : > ** Unchanged branches > (...) > stable/* I'm wondering if we can get rid of them, but i'm not sure about one thing: are they just a point in our history, i.e. ... (lots of commits) ...<2.x stable release commit> ... (lots of commits) ... ? Or are they true branches, i.e. not a subset of master? In the first case maybe we could just use git tags? (or is my question stupid because we are already using them?) cheers, Janek PS overall LGTM ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision)
LGTM Trevor - Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:33 PM Subject: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories (probable decision) I've made a few clarifications to the original proposal, but nothing substantial is changed. http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html ** Proposal summary Our source code hosting is confused: some branches of lilypond savannah are confusing and should removed, while other parts of our source code aren’t in a repository at all! I propose: * Reserve the savannah lilypond.git repository for logical branches of master. * Create separate savannah lilypond/foo.git repositories for other material, notably lilypad-macos, lilypad-windows, archive-web. * We add an additional website-media repository for material such as our pdf publications (e.g., Erik’s thesis, Han-Wen and Jan’s papers), the compiled ly-examples/, and generated pictures/. * Since GUB is used by other projects, it will remain in its current repository on github. ** Rationale Most of the open-source world abandoned keeping source code primarily in tarballs about 10 years ago. But as far as I know, the official version of the windows lilypad application is a tarball on http://lilypond.org/download/gub-sources/lilypad/! (thankfully Patrick has a mirror of them in http://github.com/pnorcks just in case something bad happens). On the other side of things, some material in the savannah lilypond repository are misleading. We don’t use the web branch any more; that material is part of master. The CG doesn’t point people at the web branch, but it’s still a tempting target for well-meaning contributors to work on, and we’ve had 2 or 3 people send us beautiful (yet heartbreaking) patches for that completely obsolete branch. I don’t want this to happen again. Another hope is that if we clean up our repositories, we may be able to encourage more use of branching. ** Proposal details I think the “remove non-logical branches” is fairly clear. The main repository would remain as: git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git I can easily get additional repositories created, namely: git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/lilypad-macos.git git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/lilypad-windows.git git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/website-media.git git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/archive.git I think that having an official place for the pdfs will not be a problem. Some people may disagree with having the compiled ly-examples/ and pictures/, though. I think this is warranted due to the pain that uploading these manually causes. I only do it manually 2 or 3 times a year; keeping them in a separate repository would allow anybody to push an update. There’s no security concerns with such an upload of pdf and pngs. Also, having this media stored somewhere would make it significantly easier for relative linux newcomers to start working on the “full” website. The ikebana branch will be migrating to Han-Wen’s github account. ** Unchanged branches master release/unstable lilypond/translation stable/* dev/* cvs/master tarball/master The last two aren’t particularly relevant these days, but they don’t do any harm. ** Other information Old info here: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=980 We will not attempt to standardize on directory locations; in fact, we will remove (most) references to $HOME/lilypond-git. Instead, we will use $LILYPOND_GIT and possibly $LILYPOND_WEBSITE_MEDIA. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1236 Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On 06/09/11 18:38, Graham Percival wrote: > On that note, I wonder if it would be worth standardizing > everything on LILYPOND_GIT instead of $HOME/lilypond-git. There > would be no change to lilydev people, since we'd set that up for > them, so it's just a matter of changing all the scripts+docs > appropriately. Then I wouldn't need the weird symlink on the > webserver and more experienced developers can put their lilypond > git repo wherever they want. AOL. Using $HOME has just clobbered any multi-user system. If you've got a couple of people collaborating that's just stopped them being able to build their shared repository! Not that that's necessarily good practice. My directory's called $HOME/gitstuff/lilypond. I'm not sure what else is in gitstuff, but there's all my music, there's libreoffice, backups/test-copies, etc. NEVER NEVER NEVER push people to put stuff in top-level $HOME. It's far too crowded as it is already :-( And while it's not the performance-killer it was, it's still not a good idea. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
Janek Warchoł wrote Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:22 PM 2011/9/6 Carl Sorensen : But your last statement forces a particular location. What if on my system I have a conflict with that location? I shouldn't be forced to do it. Currently, I don't use lilypond-git. And I don't do an out-of-tree build (because it doesn't work for me on OS/X, and I don't want to use lilydev, and I don't want to take the time to troubleshoot it). And I'm able to deal with non-standard locations just fine. If you say I "must" put them where you say, then I lose that flexibility. I'm totally fine with having lilydev set up environment variables with the standard directories. And I'm fine with saying "The standard locations are" But enforcing the use of standard locations would be a mistake, IMO. +1 +2 Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 19:20:05 schrieb Graham Percival: > > What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT and > > $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up these > > variables by themselves? (potentially after googling for help) > > That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) > > Wait a second, why would we need those at all? If the codebases are > completely > separate, one shouldn't depend on the other. And the build already knows the > source dir, so we don't need any pointer in an env variable. > > Or am I misunderstanding something here? What exactly depends on the source > being in ~/lilypond-git? The trivial example is the ability to copy&paste build instructions from the CG, namely: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/compiling-with-lilydev cd ~/lilypond-git/ sh autogen.sh --noconfigure mkdir -p build/ cd build/ ../configure cd ~/lilypond-git/build/ make cd ~/lilypond-git/build/ make make doc Also, the lily-git.tcl script needs to know where the git repository is; we do *not* want to require that this script is run from inside the source directory. Switching to the web-media repository now: A more sophisticated example, and one which pretty much only affects me and maybe 2 or 3 other people, is the ability to recreate the website exactly as it is on lilypond.org. You can create a website with images by doing make doc make website but that's not how we do stuff on the webserver -- we can't compile lilypond on there. So instead, I compile images on my computer and upload it once or twice a year. Skim these instructions: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/uploading-and-security I want to enable anybody to test something with the exact same setup as the website; instead of me running rsync myself, I want to have a repository for those images. Then (in theory) anybody can update the example images, instead of requiring my personal attention. We also (currently) have some material which is *only* on the website, like the PDF publications (Erik's thesis, Han-Wen and Jan's papers, hopefully Mike's ICMC 2011 paper, etc). It doesn't make sense to put them in the main lilypond git repo, but I'd like to have them in a repository somewhere. That's something else to dump into the web-media repository. I suppose that somebody could make the case that those pdf files, and any other web media which is not compiled directly from lilypond git, really must be in the main lilypond git repository. I have some amount of sympathy for this attitude, but I think it's going overboard. I'm not opposed to an optional --with-web-media-dir= option to ../configure, though. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
2011/9/6 Carl Sorensen : > But your last statement forces a particular location. What if on my system > I have a conflict with that location? I shouldn't be forced to do it. > > Currently, I don't use lilypond-git. And I don't do an out-of-tree build > (because it doesn't work for me on OS/X, and I don't want to use lilydev, > and I don't want to take the time to troubleshoot it). And I'm able to deal > with non-standard locations just fine. > > If you say I "must" put them where you say, then I lose that flexibility. > > I'm totally fine with having lilydev set up environment variables with the > standard directories. And I'm fine with saying "The standard locations > are" But enforcing the use of standard locations would be a mistake, > IMO. +1 cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On 9/6/11 11:25 AM, "Phil Holmes" wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] >> Sent: 06 September 2011 18:20 >> To: Phil Holmes >> Cc: 'Trevor Daniels'; lilypond-devel@gnu.org >> Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories >> >> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:14:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: >>>> The only kind of person who's interested in those other >> repositories >>>> will have their own favorite directory layout anyway >> (like me; all >>>> my source repositories go under >>>> $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc >> and website >>> builds can copy them using standard scripts? >> >> hmm, good point. >> >> What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT >> and $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up >> these variables by themselves? (potentially after googling >> for help) That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) > > Surely it's better to put them in My Documents\lily\media, etc. :-) > > I'm reasonably easy, providing there's some standard way of accessing the > files. It just seems to me that if you're going to say "you must set up a > variable called LILYPOND_GIT pointing to your repository" you might as well > say "To use standard build methods, you must put the repositories in these > directories". But your last statement forces a particular location. What if on my system I have a conflict with that location? I shouldn't be forced to do it. Currently, I don't use lilypond-git. And I don't do an out-of-tree build (because it doesn't work for me on OS/X, and I don't want to use lilydev, and I don't want to take the time to troubleshoot it). And I'm able to deal with non-standard locations just fine. If you say I "must" put them where you say, then I lose that flexibility. I'm totally fine with having lilydev set up environment variables with the standard directories. And I'm fine with saying "The standard locations are" But enforcing the use of standard locations would be a mistake, IMO. Thanks, Carl > > -- > Phil > > > ___ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 19:20:05 schrieb Graham Percival: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:14:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > > The only kind of person who's interested in those other > > > repositories will have their own favorite directory layout > > > anyway (like me; all my source repositories go under > > > $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. > > > > Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc and website > > builds can copy them using standard scripts? > > hmm, good point. > > What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT and > $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up these > variables by themselves? (potentially after googling for help) > That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) Wait a second, why would we need those at all? If the codebases are completely separate, one shouldn't depend on the other. And the build already knows the source dir, so we don't need any pointer in an env variable. Or am I misunderstanding something here? What exactly depends on the source being in ~/lilypond-git? Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 19:14:57 schrieb Phil Holmes: > > -Original Message- > > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > > The only kind of person who's interested in those other > > repositories will have their own favorite directory layout > > anyway (like me; all my source repositories go under > > $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. > > Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc and website > builds can copy them using standard scripts? No, the doc and website build MUST NOT depend on anything that is not part of the lilypond git repo. Anything else does not simplify things, but rather complicates the build by one more dependency (which we then also have to check for in the ./configure script, properly document in the instructions, and most importantly also have to regularly update/fetch to keep the main build working)... The idea here is not to split up the current codebase to multiple repositories. Rather, we have some branches in our git repository, which do not have anything to do with the lilypond codebase. The proposal is to move that code out of the lilypond git repository and into their own. Lilypond will not depend on those other repositories at all. cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > Sent: 06 September 2011 18:38 > To: Phil Holmes > Cc: 'Trevor Daniels'; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > > > > > > What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT and > > > $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up > these variables > > > by themselves? (potentially after googling for help) That feels > > > like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) > > > > Surely it's better to put them in My Documents\lily\media, etc. :-) > > > > I'm reasonably easy, providing there's some standard way of > accessing > > the files. It just seems to me that if you're going to say > "you must > > set up a variable called LILYPOND_GIT pointing to your > repository" you > > might as well say "To use standard build methods, you must put the > > repositories in these directories". > > Honest answer? Because I want to use the standard build > methods, but I'm not going to change my directory structure. > Sure, there might be other people like me who would be > spectactularly unimpressed with a project that insisted on > hard-coding their directory paths and we don't want to turn > away people like that, but really the biggest reason is my > own convenience. > > On that note, I wonder if it would be worth standardizing > everything on LILYPOND_GIT instead of $HOME/lilypond-git. > There would be no change to lilydev people, since we'd set > that up for them, so it's just a matter of changing all the > scripts+docs appropriately. Then I wouldn't need the weird > symlink on the webserver and more experienced developers can > put their lilypond git repo wherever they want. LGTM. Can you add a note to this effect (i.e. the use of the variables and their names) to the PROP? -- Phil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > > > > What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT > > and $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up > > these variables by themselves? (potentially after googling > > for help) That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) > > Surely it's better to put them in My Documents\lily\media, etc. :-) > > I'm reasonably easy, providing there's some standard way of accessing the > files. It just seems to me that if you're going to say "you must set up a > variable called LILYPOND_GIT pointing to your repository" you might as well > say "To use standard build methods, you must put the repositories in these > directories". Honest answer? Because I want to use the standard build methods, but I'm not going to change my directory structure. Sure, there might be other people like me who would be spectactularly unimpressed with a project that insisted on hard-coding their directory paths and we don't want to turn away people like that, but really the biggest reason is my own convenience. On that note, I wonder if it would be worth standardizing everything on LILYPOND_GIT instead of $HOME/lilypond-git. There would be no change to lilydev people, since we'd set that up for them, so it's just a matter of changing all the scripts+docs appropriately. Then I wouldn't need the weird symlink on the webserver and more experienced developers can put their lilypond git repo wherever they want. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > Sent: 06 September 2011 18:20 > To: Phil Holmes > Cc: 'Trevor Daniels'; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:14:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > > The only kind of person who's interested in those other > repositories > > > will have their own favorite directory layout anyway > (like me; all > > > my source repositories go under > > > $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. > > > > Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc > and website > > builds can copy them using standard scripts? > > hmm, good point. > > What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT > and $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up > these variables by themselves? (potentially after googling > for help) That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) Surely it's better to put them in My Documents\lily\media, etc. :-) I'm reasonably easy, providing there's some standard way of accessing the files. It just seems to me that if you're going to say "you must set up a variable called LILYPOND_GIT pointing to your repository" you might as well say "To use standard build methods, you must put the repositories in these directories". -- Phil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 06:14:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > The only kind of person who's interested in those other > > repositories will have their own favorite directory layout > > anyway (like me; all my source repositories go under > > $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. > > Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc and website builds > can copy them using standard scripts? hmm, good point. What about just using environment variables, $LILYPOND_GIT and $LILYPOND_MEDIA_GIT, then telling the user to set up these variables by themselves? (potentially after googling for help) That feels like a more "unix-y" solution to me. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > Sent: 06 September 2011 17:49 > To: Phil Holmes > Cc: 'Trevor Daniels'; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > Another thought. We've established a standard (that not everyone > > adopts, but it's still a standard) that the git repository > is locally > > stored in lilypond-git with the build being done in > > lilypond-git/build. Where would these new repositories be > locally stored? > > Wherever they want. We currently have an average of 3 commits per > *year* to those branches (and the things they would replace). > If they were easier to find, it might go up to 10 commits > per year, but I really doubt that it'd go higher. > > The only kind of person who's interested in those other > repositories will have their own favorite directory layout > anyway (like me; all my source repositories go under > $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. Wouldn't it be better to standardise them so that the doc and website builds can copy them using standard scripts? -- Phil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:45:19PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > Another thought. We've established a standard (that not everyone adopts, > but it's still a standard) that the git repository is locally stored in > lilypond-git with the build being done in lilypond-git/build. Where would > these new repositories be locally stored? Wherever they want. We currently have an average of 3 commits per *year* to those branches (and the things they would replace). If they were easier to find, it might go up to 10 commits per year, but I really doubt that it'd go higher. The only kind of person who's interested in those other repositories will have their own favorite directory layout anyway (like me; all my source repositories go under $HOME/src/) so they'd ignore any recommendation anyway. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-devel-bounces+mail=philholmes@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+mail=philholmes@gnu.org] > On Behalf Of Trevor Daniels > Sent: 06 September 2011 10:27 > To: Graham Percival; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > > Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 05, 2011 9:39 PM > > > > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html > > > > I'm happy with this proposal, but the origin/dev branches are > not mentioned explicitly. Presumably they remain unchanged? > > Trevor Another thought. We've established a standard (that not everyone adopts, but it's still a standard) that the git repository is locally stored in lilypond-git with the build being done in lilypond-git/build. Where would these new repositories be locally stored? -- Phil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: Graham Percival [mailto:gra...@percival-music.ca] > Sent: 06 September 2011 15:26 > To: Phil Holmes > Cc: 'Trevor Daniels'; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:45:25PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > > > How easy is it to switch between the various git > repositories? Would > > we update lilygit, or reserve use of the new repositories for those > > who had started to use terminal? > > It's not hard for command-line people. We would not update > lilygit, because nothing in those other repositories are > things that normal contributors would care about. > > The only possible exception is lilypad, but if somebody is > sufficiently technically skilled that they could hope to make > a meaningful contribution to lilypad, then they are also > sufficiently technically skilled to spend 30 minutes reading > a git tutorial. > > Cheers, > - Graham I quickly gave up with lilypad. I couldn't see it gave me an advantage over Notepad and then started using a paid-for editor with parentesis matching, etc. I seem to remember that it didn't do things like find and replace? What's its advantage over notepad? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:45:25PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > > How easy is it to switch between the various git repositories? Would we > update lilygit, or reserve use of the new repositories for those who had > started to use terminal? It's not hard for command-line people. We would not update lilygit, because nothing in those other repositories are things that normal contributors would care about. The only possible exception is lilypad, but if somebody is sufficiently technically skilled that they could hope to make a meaningful contribution to lilypad, then they are also sufficiently technically skilled to spend 30 minutes reading a git tutorial. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
Am Tuesday, 6. September 2011, 15:45:25 schrieb Phil Holmes: > How easy is it to switch between the various git repositories? It's really simple: git remote set-url origin [new-URL-comes-here] Or if you want to keep the old, simply create a new remote: git remote add newserver [new-URL-comes-here] You can then push/pull/fetch from "newserver" just like you did on the main lilypond server (named "origin"). E.g. git push newserver master or git fetch newserver After all, that's one of the main objectives of distributed versioning systems like git: They are not tied to one particular server. For example, I'm working on lilypond on my home laptop and my office PC. I'm creating branches on both, committing stuff on both and the fetch and push regurlarly between those two computers (i.e. I have more remotes than "origin", and I do "git fetch -- all"). That way, I always have the state of the other machine readily available on the machine I'm working on.. Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
> -Original Message- > From: lilypond-devel-bounces+mail=philholmes@gnu.org > [mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+mail=philholmes@gnu.org] > On Behalf Of Trevor Daniels > Sent: 06 September 2011 10:27 > To: Graham Percival; lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories > > > Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 05, 2011 9:39 PM > > > > http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html > > > > I'm happy with this proposal, but the origin/dev branches are > not mentioned explicitly. Presumably they remain unchanged? > > Trevor How easy is it to switch between the various git repositories? Would we update lilygit, or reserve use of the new repositories for those who had started to use terminal? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:27:25AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 05, 2011 9:39 PM > > > >http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html > > I'm happy with this proposal, but the origin/dev branches > are not mentioned explicitly. Presumably they remain > unchanged? Yes, since those are "logical" branches -- at some point in time the code in dev/* was "split away" from the code in master. By contrast, the branches I think we should move to a different repository were never "split away" from master. Unchanged are: master release/unstable lilypond/translation stable/* dev/* cvs/master tarball/master the last two aren't particularly relevant these days, but they don't do any harm. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 05, 2011 9:39 PM http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_11.html I'm happy with this proposal, but the origin/dev branches are not mentioned explicitly. Presumably they remain unchanged? Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GOP-PROP 11: git repositories
2011/9/5 Graham Percival : > ** Proposal summary > > Our source code hosting is confused: some branches of lilypond > savannah are confusing and should removed, while other parts of > our source code aren’t in a repository at all! generally LGTM, i only have one question: > ** Proposal details > > I think the “remove non-logical branches” is fairly clear. What branches will remain? cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
