Hi, [please do not top post] On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: > There is nothing wrong with either of the two approaches. They > could both coexist but address different needs: > -- the manual should be more oriented on technical issues and > addresses only the most recent versions; The problem: it is not just "the manual". It is the "user manual". > -- the book should be more user-oriented, and more general, > explaining how source management should be addressed by using git, and > maybe make comparisons with may other versioning systems. Also the > book could relate to many versions -- both old and new. > > Also I would note that the wiki book is more easy to edit... If > you spot errors or want to add something you just go and edit it and > the effect is immediate. But in contrast sending patches involves some > overhead... I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other hand, the Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches. Ciao, Dscho - 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
