Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] doc: transform breaking changes doc to a manpage
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Sep 30, 2026, 14:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ar0cjf3rdrp6NAba@pks.im>
- In-Reply-To
- <2e53feae-94fe-4e1b-9665-2a639fe08515@app.fastmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 04:17:44PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, at 15:28, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 12:41:25PM +0200, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote: > >> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> > > [...] The one interesting question about it is of course what we'll do > > with the document once Git 3.0 is out. Will we retain it? Will we > > remove it? Will we empty it and make it focus on Git 4.0? > > > > I guess once it's a manpage we should definitely retain its contents for > > a while longer. The breaking changes will be relevant to users even > > after they've already upgraded to Git 3.0. But if so, we should probably > > introduce a new section for Git 4.0, at least if we already want to > > start thinking about that. > > > > NB: even if we start thinking about it I think we should probably not > > release it anytime soon. I guess having a major release once per > > decade may be good enough. > > I know you are wondering out loud here to the fora. But just personally, > I imagine that this will happen after Git 3.0: > > • A section at the end about Git 3.0 for historical interest as well as > people on older versions who might be browsing outside of their > installation (probably git-scm) (and who might be on pre-3.0) > • Git 4.0 discussion before that, however hypothetical or distant the > release date
Yeah, that's also mostly what I arrived at, too.
Show 18 quoted lines
> >> To that end, let’s move the text to a manpage. But keep the old page, > >> just linking to the new one. (We wouldn’t want to break any readers.) > >> > >> Just do the minimal changes for the new format. Also demote the first > >> section to the second level, i.e. make “Introduction” the same level > >> as “Procedure’. > > > > I feel like a good first step could've been to convert the > > BreakingChanges.adoc document in-place to use the new format. Like that, > > it would've become way easier to see what's actually changing. The > > rename could've then been a 1:1 move. > > Like this? > > 1. Convert to the manpage format without changing the filename > 2. Rename the file: pure rename without any other modifications > 3. Resurrect `BreakingChanges.adoc` with one line that points to the new > document
I guess (2) and (3) can easily be combined. I'd hope that Git still detects this as a 1:1 rename.
Patrick