On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Thank you all. -- 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