Re: Re-write of documentation tree build process

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

John Mandereau <address@hidden> writes:

> Just done. I've spent so much time testing and debugging that I think
> stable/2.10 is almost ready for a Christmas release :-)

Thanks.

> Ok. But I've scrapped remove_self_ref() because no HTML file in the docs
> currently needs it. @WEB-TITLE@ substitution isn't used either, but
> since it was less messy, I kept it.

Very good.

> After what Juergen wrote, it's safer not to change it.

Sure, I should have verified before speaking ;-)

> You remarks are very interesting, especially towards a programming
> newbie like me, but I already spent a lot of time on this... IMHO,
> programs like these buildscripts won't grow to thousands of lines of
> code, so as long as they work, they can bear not totally perfect code.
> Anyway, I take your remarks as general programming rules :-)

Ok.

> If I really wanted to rewrite it, I'd split it into:
> - a function that walks the input directories and returns directories
> and files lists
> - filtering these lists
> - mapping the lists with mkdir, hardlink and symlink standard library
> functions

Yes, that makes sense.

> In my newbie mind, I thought that it would not possible to do what we
> need for the docs i18n with the shell/make mix, or that it would be very
> slow and disk space consuming, so Python was a good solution. After
> having read rsync man page, I feel it may be wrong...

As Han-Wen says, the millions of options is hardly a good thing about
rsinc.  Mix that with the fact that the ordering of some options is
significant, rsync has intricate special regular expression syntax
'**' comes to mind, and trailing slashes sometimes have magic meaning,
all makes it next to impossible to predict what rsync will do, without
actually testing it.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org