Re: is a separate gdp branch useful?

[Graham Percival]

We're pushing all our changes.  The more I think about it, the less I 
like the notion of a separate branch:
- John needs to merge all the updates
- people like Mats or Rune don't track GDP, and are sensibly concerned 
about updating the docs in main if those changes might be overwritten / 
conflict with coming updates in GDP.
- people like me avoid changing things in main (even non-doc stuff, like 
the THANKS) because I'm currently on GDP and don't feel comfortable 
switching back and forth.

It made sense in the beginning, but now that we've moved to GDP before 
2.12, I think we should just move to main.

John, could you do this merge and branch delete at your convenience?

Cheers,
- Graham

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> It is up to you. For large changes, it is convenient to have a
> separate branch, but it's also a good idea to have a topic branch, and
> prepare the changes there. Then, it is easier to make sure that only
> good changes get pushed into master.
>
> 2007/11/20, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > Initially we wanted lilypond/gdp on a separate branch so that we could
> > tear apart the docs while keeping the 2.11 docs intact.  But since we've
> > merged the docs now, is there actually any point in keeping them on a
> > separate branch?  Would a separate branch just make more work for John,
> > for now real benefit?