From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:40:44 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Documentation: reorganize documentation of URLs understood by git Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v6345jcfq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Hi, > 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