Re: Contributor Guide "volunteers" needed

[Jonathan Kulp]

Graham Percival wrote:

> HIGH PRIORITY:
> - can somebody maoing check the maoing git commands in CG 1
>   already?  Either somebody with a big internet connection, or
>   somebody who knows git so intimiately that he can state with
>   absolute certainty that the commands work.

Running Ubuntu 8.04

Checking these now.

1. Problem in 1.1.3:

http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/devel/contrib-guide/Website-source-code.html#Website-source-code

The first command here creates a dir "lilypod-web" instead of "lilypond-web"


2. 1.1.6: this command in section 1.1.6 didn't do anything when I ran it:

git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git

Here's the terminal output:

address@hidden:~$ git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git
bash: git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git: No such file or directory

I tried it in a browser also but it didn't do anything there, either. 
Is this even a terminal command?

3. 1.1.6: Third item on the same page didn't do anything for me:

ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond.git

I tried running it again as "ssh git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/lilypond.git" 
without results.

The http link worked fine.

4. 1.4.1: The "gitk" command has a dependency--need to apt-get it to run 
the command.  Not a big deal but I thought I'd mention it.


NOT CHECKED: I didn't try the commands for creating patches and applying 
them yet since I don't have any patches to make at the moment.  The 
patches I sent to Carl already were done with the diff -u command 
instead of git.

> Desired: cut&paste methods for git work.  Don't explain about
> branches.  Ideally don't ask people to edit files.  Don't explain

An admirable goal!  I agree.

> why git is fantastic and can create a nice cup of proper British
> tea, which incidentally I would be willing to commit a minor
> felony to get right now, or why git is so much better than cvs.
> Design these docs for idiots who don't want to think.  Not because
> we want braindead idiots contributing to lilypond, but because we
> want people contributing to lilypnod to spend all their brainpower
> working on their contributions, not puzzling out the git docs,
> which incidentally suck worse than the instant cappacino packets
> (milk and sugar included in the powder!) I bought last week.
>
> I think the current format is fine, as long as the @example
> sections actually work.  I don't know if they do or not.  One Frog
> commented that the "git-format patch HEAD" didn't work and he had
> to spend half an hour figuring out the right command, which is a
> perfect example of what we want to avoid.

Apart from the problems above I think they're fine.  I do appreciate 
having all those commands organized and explained like that.  Thanks. :)

Jon
--
Jonathan Kulp
http://www.jonathankulp.com