Re: [PATCH 0/3] [doc] Remove gittutorial-2

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 30, 2026, 07:50 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzewzch55.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <8a5b742a-3f11-4bfa-954b-ffdd839b6d43@app.fastmail.com>

"Julia Evans" <julia@jvns.ca> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> So I personally feel it is OK to remove the old one, without
>> promising or even hinting at what in the new one that replaces it.
>> But we would want to see its replacement in the not-so-distant
>> future.
>
> I'm not planning to replace gittutorial-2 since the material in it
> is already covered by gitdatamodel and gitcore-tutorial.

OK. I didn't sense that from the proposed log messages for these patches. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Show 9 quoted lines

>> Also, we may want to decide what to do with gittutorial.  It is
>> short and reasonably sweet.  One old-fashioned thing that does not
>> exactly match today's prevalent usage patterns may be that it starts
>> tracking a new project from a tarball, but other than that, it may
>> not hurt to keep it around.  I do not know.
>
> We definitely want a tutorial that covers `git init`, `git add`, `git commit`,
> etc. Any replacement would definitely cover those topics, but 
> I don't see the value of having 2 such tutorials.

> Why do you think it would be valuable to keep it around? It seems
> like it would cause a lot of confusion to me.

You confuse me.

What do you mean by "it" in "keep it around"?  gittutorial.adoc?

If so you said it yourself, that we want to have a tutorial that covers the basics like `git init` etc.

Or do you mean some other document, like gittutorial-2? It would have made sense to keep it while a replacement was being written, to make comparison easier, *if* the goal were to make sure that the new one covers everything the existing one covered, but we already agreed that it is not the goal to salvage what is in gittutorial-2 (and that is why I personally feel it is OK to remove the old one first).

Puzzled.