Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: Update 'linux-2.6.git' -> 'linux.git'

From: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Date: Jun 19, 2013, 19:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20130619194709.GQ15550@odin.tremily.us>
In-Reply-To: <7vtxku112r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:07:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-clone.txt b/Documentation/git-clone.txt
> > index a0727d7..8e5260f 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-clone.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-clone.txt
> > @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ $ git clone --bare -l /home/proj/.git /pub/scm/proj.git
> >  * Create a repository on the kernel.org machine that borrows from Linus:
> >  +
> >  ------------
> > -$ git clone --bare -l -s /pub/scm/.../torvalds/linux-2.6.git \
> > +$ git clone --bare -l -s /pub/scm/.../torvalds/linux.git \
> >      /pub/scm/.../me/subsys-2.6.git
> >  ------------
> 
> Aside from s|subsys-2.6|subsys| David already mentioned, I think
> it is a lot saner to remove this particular example.  Nobody runs
> shell on k.org machines these days, and local borrowing "-l -s" is
> already shown in another example.
> 
> Also you seem to have missed another "linux-2.6 my2.6" clone in the
> first example.

Between the nfs-2.6 examples I mentioned earlier, the my2.6 clone here, and the:

  $ git clone --reference my2.6 \
    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/.../linux-2.7 \
    my2.7

example listed later in git-clone.txt, I think we're trying to push linux.git examples too far ;). However, I can't think of a simple example for --reference that doesn't drag in a longer discussion to motivate shared object repositories. I'll hunt through the rest of the docs looking for other examples I can reuse.

I think any doc rewrites should be outside the scope of this patch, which should just replace references to linux-2.6.git with linux.git (as it does). Further cleanups to remove references to the NFS and my2.{6,7} stuff and replace them with alternative examples can come as follow-up patches in v2 of this series. Does that sound reasonable?

Should the size updates from 2/2 (user-manual: Update download size for Git and the kernel) go into the reroll, or have they been picked up in a separate branch?

Cheers, Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy