Re: doc branching

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Graham Percival wrote:
> In addition, if Erik's music streams are in place in 2.10, then users 
> who don't want to manually upgrade syntax on old completed files have 
> the option of using the streams (which is the whole point of them, 
> right?)   If you look at it that way, wouldn't we be absolutely crazy to 
> release 3.0 instead of 2.10?  :)

I'm in disagreement with Erik over this, as I think that people will 
want to upgrade their .ly files, instead of upgrading machine generated 
files which aren't editable. Note that the  stream -> .ly conversion is 
non-existent at present.

> > Then, when we gear up for 2.10 / 3.0 release, and you overwrite the 
> > manual with the 2.8 version, and then distribute the 2.9 material over 
> > the new manual.
>
> Exactly!  ... actually, this could work even better than I originally 
> thought -- if I only make changes to the 2.8 docs, I don't need to track 
> unstable lily (and its various little hiccups, like new functionality in 
> CVS and docs that I can't compile until a new unstable GUB release).

OK, sounds as if we have decided then :)

Just drop me a line when I should update lilypond.org with the latest 
doc fixes.

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
 -- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com