Re: [StGit PATCH 6/6] Refresh and expand the tutorial (not finished)
- From
Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
- Date
- Oct 7, 2008, 07:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20081007071223.GC31332@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
- In-Reply-To
- <b0943d9e0810061425u3ead1de5re1a252f03c2d09b3@mail.gmail.com>
On 2008-10-06 22:25:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> 2008/10/5 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>: > > > This is a first pass at expanding the tutorial, fixing its > > formatting, and updating it with the new things that have happened > > in StGit. > > > > There are a number of things still left to do in the second half > > of the document; they are tagged with "TODO". > > Thanks for this. Even with the TODOs, I think we can merge them into > the master branch so that I have the same copy as you.
OK, that makes sense; "master" is, after all, a development branch. A stable development branch, but still a development branch.
> Do you plan to do more work on the tutorial (so that we don't > duplicate)?
I was planning to finish it if nobody else stepped up. But it'd be great if I didn't have to do it alone. :-)
I guess we can avoid duplicate work if we send out a mail saying "I'll now be working on part XXX" before we start writing.
Show 5 quoted lines
> > -Layout of the .git directory > > Should we mention the metadata storage somewhere? This is probably > too advanced for the tutorial but might be useful to have it in a > development document (for other to understand where we keep things).
Yes, probably.
> Actually, is the automatically generated documentation from the new > infrastructure enough?
I doubt it. It probably could be made enough, though, but I don't know if that'd be better or worse than a separate document -- the code documentation is tightly tied to the code, and I'm not sure if we want that in this case.
We can let whoever writes it decide.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
www.treskal.com/kalle