From: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:06:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Announcement of Git wikibook
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:

> 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