Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > +[[getting-help]] > +=== Getting Help > + > +If you get stuck, you can seek help in the following places. Is this list meant to be an exhaustive list of authoritative sources? IOW, are we reasonably sure that some of us would be around and give useful help, and that we do not mind readers to consider these places "officially endorsed by the project"? Or is this meant to be a list of reasonably well-known places, but may include places where the project does not want to be associated with the quality of answers given there? I am (implicitly) assuming that it is the former, but I think it is better to clarify what this "list of places" is meant to be. I notice that stack overflow is missing in this list. Intended? Not that I visit there at all nor I would recommend it, but I recall seeing questions asked by more than a few people after getting bad pieces of advice there. > +==== https://public-inbox.org/git[git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > + > +This is the main Git project mailing list where code reviews, version > +announcements, design discussions, and more take place. If you fail to receive > +help via the channels above, you can ask your question here. The Git list > +requires plain-text-only emails and prefers inline and bottom-posting when > +replying to mail; you will be CC'd in all replies to you. Optionally, you can > +subscribe to the list by sending an email to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with > +"subscribe git" in the body. Sounds good; I agree with Denton, especially with the mention of "you must join" on the other mailing list, that it is a good idea to explicitly say that subscription is optional in this entry. You can ask questions even if you haven't tried other avenues and failed, but this entry makes it sound as if an earlier failure elsewhere is a prerequisite for asking for help here. Thanks.
