From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:20:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Announcement of Git wikibook
Message-ID: <64557FA7-E190-4498-9771-6561E6D7205E@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <8e04b5820710200040q76301c58j33e5d0895956b150@mail.gmail.com>

El 20/10/2007, a las 9:40, Ciprian Dorin Craciun escribió:

>     There is nothing wrong with either of the two approaches. They
> could both coexist but address different needs:
>     -- the manual should be more oriented on technical issues and
> addresses only the most recent versions;
>     -- the book should be more user-oriented, and more general,
> explaining how source management should be addressed by using git, and
> maybe make comparisons with may other versioning systems. Also the
> book could relate to many versions -- both old and new.
>
>     Also I would note that the wiki book is more easy to edit... If
> you spot errors or want to add something you just go and edit it and
> the effect is immediate. But in contrast sending patches involves some
> overhead...

But Git already has its own easy-to-edit, official wiki:

   http://git.or.cz/gitwiki

Creating a separate wiki book seems like an unnecessary duplication  
of effort.

(Obviously, you or anybody else is free to contribute documentation  
wherever you want.)

Cheers,
Wincent