{"thread":{"id":"10382","subject":"Announcement of Git wikibook","startedAt":"2007-10-19T20:21:10Z","lastAt":"2007-10-21T10:06:53Z","messageCount":8,"participants":["Evan Carroll","Steffen Prohaska","Ciprian Dorin Craciun","Wincent Colaiuta","Johannes Schindelin","Steven Walter"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"56629","messageId":"428b865e0710191321ndd08564yec6366cb10705af6@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Evan Carroll","fromEmail":"me@evancarroll.com","sentAt":"2007-10-19T20:21:10Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-19T20:21:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"me@evancarroll.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/44cedb04dbe5c62bab26e330a8aeedb79187aec5229fae55f24c852198519014?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I've create a git wikibook if anyone wants to help expand it.\nhttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Source_Control_Management_With_Git\n\n-- \nEvan Carroll\nSystem Lord of the Internets\nme@evancarroll.com\n832-445-8877\n"},{"id":"56631","messageId":"C0D5CAE0-A152-4572-81D5-AF2A78DD89C6@zib.de","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"428b865e0710191321ndd08564yec6366cb10705af6@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Steffen Prohaska","fromEmail":"prohaska@zib.de","sentAt":"2007-10-19T20:58:06Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-19T20:58:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"prohaska@zib.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/217580?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Oct 19, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Evan Carroll wrote:\n\n> I've create a git wikibook if anyone wants to help expand it.\n> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Source_Control_Management_With_Git\n\nI'm just curious. What is the advantage of a wikibook?\n\nWe already have a manual\n\nhttp://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html\n\nincluding a todo list\n\nhttp://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#todo\n\nSo, why don't you send patches improving the manual, but instead\nstarted a wiki book from scratch?\n\n\tSteffen\n"},{"id":"56676","messageId":"8e04b5820710200040q76301c58j33e5d0895956b150@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"C0D5CAE0-A152-4572-81D5-AF2A78DD89C6@zib.de","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Ciprian Dorin Craciun","fromEmail":"ciprian.craciun@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-20T07:40:24Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-20T07:40:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ciprian.craciun@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9685eb13288a2c28bdde10acdcda9f15d495efad7b12bf49e3525eb7b8acf944?d=mp&s=160"},"body":" There is nothing wrong with either of the two approaches. They\ncould both coexist but address different needs:\n -- the manual should be more oriented on technical issues and\naddresses only the most recent versions;\n -- the book should be more user-oriented, and more general,\nexplaining how source management should be addressed by using git, and\nmaybe make comparisons with may other versioning systems. Also the\nbook could relate to many versions -- both old and new.\n\n Also I would note that the wiki book is more easy to edit... If\nyou spot errors or want to add something you just go and edit it and\nthe effect is immediate. But in contrast sending patches involves some\noverhead...\n\n Ciprian.\n\n\nOn 10/19/07, Steffen Prohaska wrote:\n>\n> On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Evan Carroll wrote:\n>\n> > I've create a git wikibook if anyone wants to help expand it.\n> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Source_Control_Management_With_Git\n>\n> I'm just curious. What is the advantage of a wikibook?\n>\n> We already have a manual\n>\n> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html\n>\n> including a todo list\n>\n> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#todo\n>\n> So, why don't you send patches improving the manual, but instead\n> started a wiki book from scratch?\n>\n> Steffen\n"},{"id":"56689","messageId":"64557FA7-E190-4498-9771-6561E6D7205E@wincent.com","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"8e04b5820710200040q76301c58j33e5d0895956b150@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-20T11:20:36Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-20T11:20:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 20/10/2007, a las 9:40, Ciprian Dorin Craciun escribió:\n\n> There is nothing wrong with either of the two approaches. They\n> could both coexist but address different needs:\n> -- the manual should be more oriented on technical issues and\n> addresses only the most recent versions;\n> -- the book should be more user-oriented, and more general,\n> explaining how source management should be addressed by using git, and\n> maybe make comparisons with may other versioning systems. Also the\n> book could relate to many versions -- both old and new.\n>\n> Also I would note that the wiki book is more easy to edit... If\n> you spot errors or want to add something you just go and edit it and\n> the effect is immediate. But in contrast sending patches involves some\n> overhead...\n\nBut Git already has its own easy-to-edit, official wiki:\n\n http://git.or.cz/gitwiki\n\nCreating a separate wiki book seems like an unnecessary duplication \nof effort.\n\n(Obviously, you or anybody else is free to contribute documentation \nwherever you want.)\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"56721","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710202232280.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"8e04b5820710200040q76301c58j33e5d0895956b150@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-20T21:34:34Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-20T21:34:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\n[please do not top post]\n\nOn Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:\n\n> There is nothing wrong with either of the two approaches. They\n> could both coexist but address different needs:\n> -- the manual should be more oriented on technical issues and\n> addresses only the most recent versions;\n\nThe problem: it is not just \"the manual\". It is the \"user manual\".\n\n> -- the book should be more user-oriented, and more general,\n> explaining how source management should be addressed by using git, and\n> maybe make comparisons with may other versioning systems. Also the\n> book could relate to many versions -- both old and new.\n> \n> Also I would note that the wiki book is more easy to edit... If\n> you spot errors or want to add something you just go and edit it and\n> the effect is immediate. But in contrast sending patches involves some\n> overhead...\n\nI am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other hand, the \nWiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to \nuser-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"56739","messageId":"20071021030927.GA19450@dervierte","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710202232280.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Steven Walter","fromEmail":"stevenrwalter@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-21T03:09:27Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-21T03:09:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stevenrwalter@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/79127?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other hand, the \n> Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to \n> user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.\n\nNo offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a curse.\nWell, it's not the \"review\" that is so much a problem as the \"editorial\ncontrol.\" In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original poster\nwas saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical\nissues and less on introducing git to a new user.\n\nThis makes perfect sense given that it's edited by oldtimers, who are\nneither inclined nor particularly suited to explaining git to newbies;\nthey have simply forgotten what it was like for these concepts to be\nforeign. They eat SHA1 hashes for breakfast and dream about index\nfiles. And that's great :)\n\nI don't think the wikibook should try to duplicate the Git User Manual.\nThat would be a wasted effort. But there is a niche to be filled in git\ndocumentation, particularly in regard to specific workflows and git best\npractices. With git, TMTOWTDI. It's quite difficult for a newbie to\nknow which of those ways will come back and bite them in the ass down the\nroad.\n\nOf course, it is a wikibook, so it will go where it goes. I for one am\nglad to see this project started.\n-- \n-Steven Walter \nFreedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4\nB2F1 0ECC E605 7321 E818 7A65 FC81 9777 DC28 9E8F \n"},{"id":"56759","messageId":"F430333B-B29B-4992-9474-0E87006CBA77@wincent.com","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"20071021030927.GA19450@dervierte","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-21T09:10:24Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-21T09:10:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 21/10/2007, a las 5:09, Steven Walter escribió:\n\n> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>> I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other \n>> hand, the\n>> Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to\n>> user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.\n>\n> No offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a \n> curse.\n> Well, it's not the \"review\" that is so much a problem as the \n> \"editorial\n> control.\" In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original \n> poster\n> was saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical\n> issues and less on introducing git to a new user.\n\nBut it's not an \"intro\", it's a user manual. That means it's supposed \nto be a comprehensive, in-depth treatment of just about everything. \nThe technical content is a good thing; it's supposed to be the \ndocument you turn to when you want to move beyond superficial use to \ngenuine, in-depth understanding.\n\nThere are other documents with the goal of \"introducing git to the \nnew user\", grouped together here:\n\n\n\nAnd also under the \"Documentation\" heading on the Git home page:\n\n\n\nThose are probably the articles that should be worked on and \naugmented if you care about introducing things to a newbie.\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"56764","messageId":"5541BD5F-BCFB-4D6C-BF4F-CFD29ACBC2B1@zib.de","threadId":"10382","inReplyTo":"F430333B-B29B-4992-9474-0E87006CBA77@wincent.com","subject":"Re: Announcement of Git wikibook","fromName":"Steffen Prohaska","fromEmail":"prohaska@zib.de","sentAt":"2007-10-21T10:06:53Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-21T10:06:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"prohaska@zib.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/217580?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Oct 21, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:\n\n> El 21/10/2007, a las 5:09, Steven Walter escribió:\n>\n>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>>> I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other \n>>> hand, the\n>>> Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to\n>>> user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.\n>>\n>> No offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a \n>> curse.\n>> Well, it's not the \"review\" that is so much a problem as the \n>> \"editorial\n>> control.\" In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original \n>> poster\n>> was saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical\n>> issues and less on introducing git to a new user.\n>\n> But it's not an \"intro\", it's a user manual. That means it's \n> supposed to be a comprehensive, in-depth treatment of just about \n> everything. The technical content is a good thing; it's supposed to \n> be the document you turn to when you want to move beyond \n> superficial use to genuine, in-depth understanding.\n\nBut it could also have introductory parts and parts decribing\nspecific workflows.\n\nSomething similar to svnbook or cvsbook would be perfect. I\nbelieve a reasonable goal is that you'll get all need if you\nsearch gitbook with google.\n\n\tSteffen\n"}]}