From: Philip Oakley Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:34:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Make 'git help everyday' work Message-ID: <18D97E9015B24D76845BFB980CB14CB8@PhilipOakley> In-Reply-To: From: "Junio C Hamano" > "Philip Oakley" writes: > >> From: "Junio C Hamano" >>>I think we already use a nicer way to set up a page alias to keep >>> old links working than making a copy in Documentation/; please mimic >>> that if possible. >> >> This was mainly about ensuring that the 'git help' command could >> access these extra extra guides that it currently misses. (Tt also >> misses the 'user-manual', which isn't a man page, but could have a >> link page to guide the seeker of truth between 'git help' and the >> actual user-manual) >> >> The only method I can see for that (via help.c) is to get the >> filename >> format correct. Where you thinking of something else? > > I do not have an objection against the creation of giteveryday.txt; > I was questioning the way the original everyday.txt was left behind > to bit-rot. It is good to keep _something_ there, because there may > be old URLs floating around that point at Documentation/everyday.txt, > but the contents of that file does not have to be a stale copy. > > Cf. bd4a3d61 (Rename {git- => git}remote-helpers.txt, 2013-01-31) > for how we renamed git-remote-helpers.txt to gitremote-helpers.txt > The commit also highlighted a couple of other places I needed to update What's the right set of options for format-patch to avoid the bulk deletions and bulk insertions between the old an new versions? That commit was amended in situ, so never had the three way delete/move/create problem. We have: everyday.txt (old) -> delete everyday.txt (new) ->create (<5% similarity) everyday.txt (old) -> giteveryday.txt (>95% similarity) It just feels that 400+ lines of complete deletion doesn't need to be in the summary patch. I have it in my mind that we always end up with the deletions being listed. Philip