On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
El 21/10/2007, a las 5:09, Steven Walter escribió:
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.
But it's not an "intro", it's a user manual. That means it's
supposed to be a comprehensive, in-depth treatment of just about
everything. The technical content is a good thing; it's supposed to
be the document you turn to when you want to move beyond
superficial use to genuine, in-depth understanding.
But it could also have introductory parts and parts decribing
specific workflows.
Something similar to svnbook or cvsbook would be perfect. I
believe a reasonable goal is that you'll get all need if you
search gitbook with google.
Steffen
-
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
