Re: [RFC/PATCH 8/8] user-manual: simplify the user configuration

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> El 23/3/2009, a las 0:01, Felipe Contreras escribió:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> El 22/3/2009, a las 19:05, Felipe Contreras escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> This is shorter, avoids the burder to think about the format of  
>>>>> the
>>>>> configuration file, and git config is already used in other  
>>>>> places in
>>>>> the manual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/user-manual.txt |    8 +++-----
>>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>>>>> index b7678aa..c6ed940 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
>>>>> @@ -1015,13 +1015,11 @@ Telling git your name
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Before creating any commits, you should introduce yourself to  
>>>>> git.  The
>>>>> -easiest way to do so is to make sure the following lines appear  
>>>>> in a
>>>>> -file named `.gitconfig` in your home directory:
>>>>> +easiest way is to use the linkgit:git-config[1] command:
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -[user]
>>>>> -       name = Your Name Comes Here
>>>>> -       email = you@yourdomain.example.com
>>>>> +$ git config --global user.name "Your Name Comes Here"
>>>>> +$ git config --global user.email you@yourdomain.example.com
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> (See the '"CONFIGURATION FILE"' section of linkgit:git-config[1]  
>>>>> for
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.6.2.1.352.gae594
>>>>
>>>> See this lengthy thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/106634
>>>
>>> I've obviously seen that thread because I started it.
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that only after sending my message. I hadn't  
>> realised at
>> first because the patch really looked like it was written by  
>> someone who
>> hadn't ever seen the thread, as it doesn't address the points  
>> raised in the
>> thread at all.
>
> I am addressing the points.