From: Sultan Shakir Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:34:20 GMT Subject: Re: Git and Documentation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michael Witten wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:47, Michael Witten wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:31, Tomas Carnecky 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. > Thank you all.