Hi, On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:35:43AM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote: > Anyhow, I'm discussing with Petr about where we want to go from here - > what changes he'd like to make, etc, but I obviously value your > opinion as well, so please let me know what you think. The content > has barely changed, it's really just a usability overhaul. I want to > make sure that whatever someone is looking for (especially someone > new), they can find in a few clicks and a few seconds. when the initial NIH reaction passes, I have to admit that I do rather like it - and it's not only because you keep mentioning how awesome I am in your blog post. ;-) I wonder if all the Git users find the heading rather funny as I did, instead of unprofessional - but maybe we don't care about users without a particular sense of humor. I'm also not overly fond of the color theme but I'm perhaps just too heavy of a blue fan. Plenty of minor fixes are available for pull at git://github.com/pasky/learn-github.git (http://github.com/pasky/learn-github/tree/master) (Note that I didn't test whether the pages still look ok with my changes since I have no Ruby on Rails setup; hopefully they should, though.) Other non-trivial nits: * I'm feeling a bit uneasy about listing so many projects using Git; I haven't heard about quite a few of these and I'm not sure on what merit should we list projects. "Prototype" or "Liftweb" and probably even "Rubinius", is that going to ring a bell for major part of visitors so that they say "oh, even _those_ guys are using Git"? * Cut the contributors list at 4 or 5 commits? Below that, the list is getting fairly useless anyway and you have trouble with keeping the names reasonably well-formed. * Reusing captions from command manpages in the Documentation page shows nicely how awful they sometimes are. :-) This is probably something to fix upstream, though. * Is "Git for the lazy" really unique in some regard to deserve to be listed among the other resources? I think we should minimalize redundancy at the documentation page, the amount of material is already overwhelming and it should be obvious for the visitor which document to choose based on his needs. I have similar doubts about the 37signals resources. In other words, "let's keep the resources orthogonal!" * There is no reference to the Wiki in the documentation, only to the [GitDocumentation] page; I think there should be a reference to the [GitFaq] page too - a lot of important points that are not obvious to newcomers are covered there. I'm just not sure where exactly to put the link. * I would go as far as put the link to the Wiki itself to the navigation bar, simply since it is such a crucial resource. * A guide on maintaining third-party patches is currently missing. * The development page is not referenced anywhere; the missing information are mailing list details (how to subscribe) and a link to SubmittingPatches. Also, I have recently talked with Junio about adding a link to the Note from the Maintainer, but we didn't yet figure out where to stabilize the location of that page. > Next, I will be working on the larger end-user documentation project, > which will linked to from the documentation page of this site, and > probably the main page too. I'll keep this list updated as I go, > since people tend to think I don't care about the community when I try > not to waste your time. :) How does that compare with the Git user manual? Have you considered collaborating on that one, or what are your reasons not to? Or are you trying to do something different? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie -- 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
