Re: Git and Documentation
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:47, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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/
>>
>
> I should add that generating documentation is time consuming and often
> requires brittle software; there's a lot to gain by having one system
> produce the same output for virtually everyone else.
>