On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:47, Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:31, Tomas Carnecky <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If the documentation is generated as part of the build, then there is no >> reason to have it part of the history - you can always rebuild it from >> the source. For the same reason you don't put compiled source into git. > > Well, theoretically. > > According to: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=MaintNotes;hb=todo > > the git project's repository itself tracks generated documentation for > practical reasons: > > The "html" and "man" [branches] are > autogenerated documentation from the > tip of the "master" branch; the tip > of "html" is extracted to be visible > at kernel.org at: > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/ > I should add that generating documentation is time consuming and often requires brittle software; there's a lot to gain by having one system produce the same output for virtually everyone else. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html