From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:47:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Git and Documentation
Message-ID: <AANLkTimK_ounhk1Qou02V_3+JjpY9Y5ZO3OO2uRn6A7k@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C61B737.50108@dbservice.com>

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:31, Tomas Carnecky <tom@dbservice.com> wrote:
> If the documentation is generated as part of the build, then there is no
> reason to have it part of the history - you can always rebuild it from
> the source. For the same reason you don't put compiled source into git.

Well, theoretically.

According to:

  http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=MaintNotes;hb=todo

the git project's repository itself tracks generated documentation for
practical reasons:

  The "html" and "man" [branches] are
  autogenerated documentation from the
  tip of the "master" branch; the tip
  of "html" is extracted to be visible
  at kernel.org at:

    http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/