Re: Announcement of Git wikibook

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Oct 20, 2007, 21:34 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710202232280.25221@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <8e04b5820710200040q76301c58j33e5d0895956b150@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

[please do not top post]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:

>     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 problem: it is not just "the manual".  It is the "user manual".

Show 9 quoted lines

>     -- 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...

I am torn. On one side I like the Wiki approach. On the other hand, the Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.

Ciao, Dscho