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...
Ciprian.
On 10/19/07, Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de> wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Evan Carroll wrote:
>
> > I've create a git wikibook if anyone wants to help expand it.
> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Source_Control_Management_With_Git
>
> I'm just curious. What is the advantage of a wikibook?
>
> We already have a manual
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html
>
> including a todo list
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html#todo
>
> So, why don't you send patches improving the manual, but instead
> started a wiki book from scratch?
>
> Steffen
Ciprian Dorin Craciun <ciprian.craciun@gmail.com>