On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:00:31AM -0800, Jon Forrest wrote: > > As someone who's read neither your edit or the original edition, but I > > did read your version of the intro, it would be very helpful to me / > > others if there was some diff between the two so we could make up our > > own mind about which one to read, and to get an idea of what sorts of > > wording changes etc. these are. > > That would indeed be nice. The best I can do is to suggest that if > you're satisfied with the regular Pro Git then my version won't > help you. On the other hand, if you find regular Pro Git puzzling, > especially in the early chapters, I suggest giving my version a try. > > Since I'm giving away my version, you have nothing to loose except > perhaps a little time. If I'm right, and my version is clearer, then > you could benefit from it. > > (You're a git expert so I doubt you need my version). I think an uspoken issue here is that while you're indeed free to "fork" this book and maintain your fork, having two books with almost identical contents may not be the best option as it simply may be outright confusing for those at whom your fork is actually targeted. That's just my opinion, or — better — feeling I gathered from the discussion, but to me these friendly nudges to maybe consider reevaluating your work for inclusion into the original's book proper look exactly as hints at that having such a fork may not be the best of all options. Another problem with the fork is its visibility. The go-to Git website links to the original work, and I assure you novice users do not casually read this list — let alone search through its archives for the mentions of an alternative book's version.
