Re: [PATCH/RFC] Documentation: reorganize documentation of URLs understood by git
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2010, 07:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <l2hf3271551004060040v4eca088ck8f1ab3376c0f889c@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v6345jcfq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
Show 5 quoted lines
> While I fully share your > "cover-to-cover" concern, the current organization was chosen to minimize > such indirection. It is optimized for different audiences than we are (I > am also from "cover-to-cover" school) who want to pick only the pages > relevant to the task at hand.
I am of the opinion that we can have both. Jonathan's document can be a more elaborate version of the standard urls.txt included in all these documents. I can see several usecases- for example, in documents like remote-helpers.txt, including a full section from urls.txt would be a bit of an overkill; we could include a reference to this document instead. Is redundancy an issue? We'd have to update both urls.txt and this document everytime we change something.
-- Ram