Re: [PATCH] doc: add some crossrefs between manual pages

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2014, 21:07 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7fz03z7i.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbnoc3zli.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Max Horn <max@quendi.de> writes:
>
>> On 11.11.2014, at 23:51, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> +linkgit:git-fast-import[1]
>>> 
>>> This looks somewhat out of place; fast-import is not the only or
>>> even the primary way to do a remote-helper, is it?
>>
>> It depends on how you look at it, I'd say. If you write a remote-helper that
>> uses the import/export feature, it is absolutely vital.  All remote helpers
>> I ever worked on are of that kind, so to me it is the primary way ;-),
>> although of course I realize there are others. So, how would you determine
>> which of the various methods is the "primary" one?
>
> You don't.  If there exists no clear "primary" one, you do not have
> to designate a random one as the "primary".
>
> I just thought that these references are to related/relevant pages
> in the same family of commands, and not a place to list possible
> implementation technologies.  We do not say "see also libcurl" only
> because we have the curl-based remote helper that almost everybody
> uses to interact with other repositories over https:// URLs here,
> and do not list send-pack or receive-pack, even though the pair
> would be a natural way to implement 'fetch' and 'push' methods to a
> helper to interact with a native Git repository, either.

Sorry, the final paragraph did not make it for some reason, which read like this:

    Having said that, we do seem to refer to fast-import quite
    extensively in the text of this manual page, so I think it is good
    to have a reference to its documentation at the bottom.

So I am OK to special case fast-import and single it out as a notable implementation technology, which is what your patch does.

Thanks.