{"thread":{"id":"44931","subject":"[RFC] what content should go in https://git-scm.com/doc/ext","startedAt":"2017-01-21T13:55:53Z","lastAt":"2017-01-25T18:43:05Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Jeff King","Christian Couder"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"309891","messageId":"20170121135545.gi6crct66msylhpr@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"44931","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[RFC] what content should go in https://git-scm.com/doc/ext","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2017-01-21T13:55:45Z","receivedAt":"2017-01-21T13:55:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"I'm wondering if anybody has opinions on:\n\n  https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924\n\n(and I suspect most people in this community do not read pull requests\nthere, hence this post).\n\nBasically, we maintain a list of links to outside documentation, as well\nas to books. Somebody has requested a link to their paid tutorial\ncourse. How should we handle it?\n\nIf the resource is valuable, then it may make sense to link to it, even\nif it costs money. We already do this with book links, and my policy has\nbeen to link any relevant book that is requested (I don't read them for\nquality, so I have no opinions).\n\nShould we do the same for tutorial content like this?\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"309937","messageId":"CAP8UFD3Z9ZrLEZVkgL7ACkL5nOsoo2R6dUC=Bfy1AjF_9+4snQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"44931","inReplyTo":"20170121135545.gi6crct66msylhpr@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: [RFC] what content should go in https://git-scm.com/doc/ext","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2017-01-22T19:13:53Z","receivedAt":"2017-01-22T19:14:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n> I'm wondering if anybody has opinions on:\n>\n>   https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924\n>\n> (and I suspect most people in this community do not read pull requests\n> there, hence this post).\n\nYeah, thanks for posting it here.\n\n> Basically, we maintain a list of links to outside documentation, as well\n> as to books. Somebody has requested a link to their paid tutorial\n> course. How should we handle it?\n\nI think it depends if you are ready and willing to handle more changes.\n\n> If the resource is valuable, then it may make sense to link to it, even\n> if it costs money. We already do this with book links, and my policy has\n> been to link any relevant book that is requested (I don't read them for\n> quality, so I have no opinions).\n>\n> Should we do the same for tutorial content like this?\n\nIt could make sense to link to tutorial content, and then it could\nalso make sense to link to trainings (online and maybe offline too),\nbut my fear is that you could then have many people who want to\nadvertise their tutorials and trainings, and that it might be\ndifficult to draw a line while keeping the playing field even.\n\nBut maybe it's worth trying anyway.\n"},{"id":"310179","messageId":"20170125184258.v5sy6hwwpdsxz2u6@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"44931","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD3Z9ZrLEZVkgL7ACkL5nOsoo2R6dUC=Bfy1AjF_9+4snQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC] what content should go in https://git-scm.com/doc/ext","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2017-01-25T18:42:58Z","receivedAt":"2017-01-25T18:43:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 08:13:53PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> > Basically, we maintain a list of links to outside documentation, as well\n> > as to books. Somebody has requested a link to their paid tutorial\n> > course. How should we handle it?\n> \n> I think it depends if you are ready and willing to handle more changes.\n\nI don't clicking \"merge\" on more changes if people are willing to do the\ndesign work.\n\n> > Should we do the same for tutorial content like this?\n> \n> It could make sense to link to tutorial content, and then it could\n> also make sense to link to trainings (online and maybe offline too),\n> but my fear is that you could then have many people who want to\n> advertise their tutorials and trainings, and that it might be\n> difficult to draw a line while keeping the playing field even.\n> \n> But maybe it's worth trying anyway.\n\nI think I'm inclined to try it, as long as it's kept in a separate \"paid\ntraining\" section, and is open to everybody. If it becomes a burden, we\ncan cut it out later. I think the important thing is that it be equally\nopen to everybody or nobody, but not just \"some\". So we'll go with\neverybody for now, and switch to nobody later if need be.\n\n-Peff\n"}]}