Re: Announcement of Git wikibook
- From
Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2007, 10:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5541BD5F-BCFB-4D6C-BF4F-CFD29ACBC2B1@zib.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <F430333B-B29B-4992-9474-0E87006CBA77@wincent.com>
On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> El 21/10/2007, a las 5:09, Steven Walter escribió: > >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other >>> hand, the >>> Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to >>> user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches. >> >> No offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a >> curse. >> Well, it's not the "review" that is so much a problem as the >> "editorial >> control." In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original >> poster >> was saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical >> issues and less on introducing git to a new user. > > But it's not an "intro", it's a user manual. That means it's > supposed to be a comprehensive, in-depth treatment of just about > everything. The technical content is a good thing; it's supposed to > be the document you turn to when you want to move beyond > superficial use to genuine, in-depth understanding.
But it could also have introductory parts and parts decribing specific workflows.
Something similar to svnbook or cvsbook would be perfect. I believe a reasonable goal is that you'll get all need if you search gitbook with google.
Steffen