On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Jakub Narębski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> In order to just pick and use the more appropriate one (or a useful >> combination of the two), a clean description of what each of them do >> without historical cruft is more readable and useful, isn't it? I >> would expect that most of them who are newly configuring a system >> would pick COMMON one and override per instance as needed, without >> touching the SYSTEM one (fallback default) after reading the above, >> and that is what we want to happen. >> >> Do you think sysadmins need a history lesson to understand why there >> are two different possibilities? > [...] >> I think the new text conveys the necessary information to the >> intended audience with more clarity without the history lesson or >> the record of your past frustration. Am I mistaken? > > Note also that this is about *gitweb/INSTALL*, which is meant to be > *short* and succint description on how to install gitweb, and not > about the reference documentation: gitweb(1) or gitweb.conf(5). > > Description of historical behavior (and backward compatibility) > has place (if any) in manpages, not gitweb/INSTALL. > -- > Jakub Narębski Let us then agree that it should be mentioned somewhere in gitweb.conf.txt then (as it currently is not). -- -Drew Northup -------------------------------------------------------------- "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59 -- 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