On Friday 30 November 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > Jakub Narebski, Thu, Nov 29, 2007 03:26:12 +0100: > > >> + <s id="git"> > >> + Medium. There's Git User's Manual, manpages, some > >> + technical documentation and some howtos. All > >> + documentation is also available online in HTML format; > >> + there is additional information (including beginnings > >> + of FAQ) on git wiki. > >> + Nevertheles one of complaints in surveys is insufficient > > > > "Nevertheless" (two "s"). > > > > BTW, I wouldn't call the level of documentation "Medium" when compared > > to any commercial SCM. How can they earn more than "a little", when > > compared to any opensource program? > > Source code is not [user level] documentation. > > But perhaps it should be "Good" instead of "Medium", although I think > not "Excellent". If we try to compare ourselves to what's closest, i.e. Mercurial, I would say that Git's documentation is probably on par with what Mercurial has to offer. Their "Documentation" entry in the comparison is as follows: "Very good. There's an overview and tutorial on the web site, and integrated help for every command." I say we go for something similar. Have fun! ...Johan -- Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> www.herland.net - 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
