Re: Git documentation at kernel.org

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 13, 2012, 00:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20120213003024.GA25794@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP2yMa+2E6101fe3Z2WTCfuGnq17WT7nDUQr7PVH6_YKRnNifw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:04:59PM -0800, Scott Chacon wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > Good point. That is probably the best place to host it.
> >
> > As far as historical reasons, perhaps the right answer is to put the
> > documentation where it makes sense to go _now_, and ask kernel.org to
> > issue http redirects for http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs.
> 
> I would be happy to set this up.  I'm currently in the process of
> revamping the website and this is one of the things I'm planning on
> doing anyways - not just hosting the generated docs, but also making
> them searchable and whatnot.

That sounds great to me. I'd like to be link-compatible with the old kernel.org docs section (even if through redirects) so that old links work (assuming kernel.org gives us a wholesale redirect). Which means importing all of the docs for released versions. I don't know if the old kernel.org doc tree was saved anywhere, but if I understand correctly, they are identical to what's in the "git-htmldocs" repository (which I _thought_ Junio wasn't going to keep updating, but it seems pretty up to date).

Show 5 quoted lines

> Actually, as long as I'm on this, what do people think about git-scm
> hosting the wiki as well?  As far as I can tell, it was down for
> months and now it's back in some sort of weird read-only state.  If I
> imported everything into a different wiki and hosted it on git-scm
> would that be acceptable?

I'd really love it if the wiki was converted to something that was git-backed. But I suspect some people might complain about switching off of mediawiki. IIRC, gollum supports some mediawiki syntax, but I don't know how much conversion work there would be.

Show 9 quoted lines

> Also, something that I realized I am not willing to maintain any more
> is the Git Community Book. It was an experiment at reorganizing some
> of the docs, but instead I spent my time on Pro Git, which is CC
> licensed.  Would anyone object to me removing the community book from
> the git-scm site and more tightly integrating the Pro Git content?
> It's more up to date and better content, I feel - I would rather have
> one book to maintain than two.  However, since it is a commercial
> product (albeit a Creative Commons licensed one), I wasn't sure if
> people would have an issue with it.

I can't remember anybody mentioning the Git Community Book here in the past few years. New users typically come with a "I read this in Pro Git and I don't understand..." question, and experienced users recommend or link to Pro Git. So I think the world would be a less confusing place with just the one source.

-Peff