From: Vaclav Hanzl <hanzl@noel.feld.cvut.cz>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:18:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Document clone of clone loosing branches?
Message-ID: <20080615.091827.74736349.hanzl@noel.feld.cvut.cz>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6azfyov.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

> These fall into "quibbling" category, but that judgement can only be made
> by people who know the history.

I allowed myself to quibble much more than usually as I think it
serves a good technical purpose. I am a new git user but quite
pervasive in getting all the info I can (I have bound copy of all git
man pages and about ten tutorials, diligently devoting much of my time
last month to reading it all; generally I am not scared by strange
things like plain Tex, FORTH, Prolog etc.) so I might serve as a good
example of user who tried hard and still did not get it with current
docs.

But it is a thin border, so please do not hesitate to shut me up if my
judgement of technical merit is wrong.

> Updates to glossary and other introductory documents might be necessary.
> For example, the entry about "tracking branch" in the glossary still talks
> about the ancient convention of copying 'master' to 'origin' as a regular
> branch:

I would appreciate this update ;-)

Regards (and big thanks for git!),

Vaclav