Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Additional FAQ entries

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 4, 2022, 13:53 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2201041450180.7076@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTWwmVFggD2UL=Ddd3rc007zRWcRs7nQtEHSS5kgjx4og@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Eric,

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:55 PM brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> > This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
> > topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
> > Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.
> >
> > Changes from v1:
> > * Drop the monorepo patch for now; I want to revise it further.
> > * Reorder the working tree patch to place more warnings up front.
> > * Mention core.gitproxy and socat.
> > * Rephrase text in the EOL entry to read correctly and be easier to
> >   understand.
> > * Improve the commit message for the working tree FAQ entry to make it
> >   clearer that users wish to transfer uncommitted changes.
>
> Thanks for re-rolling. FAQ entries are, of course, bikeshedding
> fodder,

That is one possible perspective. Another possible perspective is that FAQ entries are the first thing users in distress might turn to, so the more helpful they are, the better. Maybe it would make sense to focus on that a bit more. As in your suggestion to name cloud sync providers by name, to make the FAQ entry eminently more "findable". To me, that did not at all feel like pointless bike-shedding, but more like a really valuable improvement that users will appreciate (even if they will be oblivious of the fact that they appreciate it, of course).

Ciao, Dscho