On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > 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. No offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a curse. Well, it's not the "review" that is so much a problem as the "editorial control." In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original poster was saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical issues and less on introducing git to a new user. This makes perfect sense given that it's edited by oldtimers, who are neither inclined nor particularly suited to explaining git to newbies; they have simply forgotten what it was like for these concepts to be foreign. They eat SHA1 hashes for breakfast and dream about index files. And that's great :) I don't think the wikibook should try to duplicate the Git User Manual. That would be a wasted effort. But there is a niche to be filled in git documentation, particularly in regard to specific workflows and git best practices. With git, TMTOWTDI. It's quite difficult for a newbie to know which of those ways will come back and bite them in the ass down the road. Of course, it is a wikibook, so it will go where it goes. I for one am glad to see this project started. -- -Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@xxxxxxxxx> Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4 B2F1 0ECC E605 7321 E818 7A65 FC81 9777 DC28 9E8F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
