On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > 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. Well, at least according to surveys results people perceive "The Mercurial Book" (hgbook) as better documentation than "Git User's Manual" + tutorials. See for example frequent requests for "The Git Book" patterned after hgbook and/or svnbook. BTW. the list was meant to be updated by contributors who added SCMs, but it doesn't liik lik it is... -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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
