patchuser-manual: add addition gitweb information

Rework the section on gitweb to add information about the cgi script and the instaweb command.

Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net>
---
 Documentation/user-manual.txt | 16 ++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

"Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2@cox.net> writes:

Isn't "browse the revisions, file contents and logs" saying the same thing as "browse your project's files and history"? Mention of the additional features in the last sentence is a very good thing to have here.

s/an simple/a simple/;

"... a simple way to start browsing the repository using gitweb", perhaps? What's notable about "instaweb" is that it talks with an on-demand instance of "gitweb" and that is the only reason why we may want to mention it together with "gitweb". There are other repository browsers (like "tig") that do not talk with a local "gitweb", and we are not intersted in mentioning them all here.

s/defualt/default/;

Other than that, looks good to me.

Thanks.

Rework the section on gitweb to add information about the cgi script and the instaweb command.

Signed-off-by: Stephen P. Smith <ischis2@cox.net>
---

Notes:
    Removed wording duplication in the first paragraph.
    
    Added explicit gitweb reference with regard to instaweb.
    
    Fixed two spelling errors.

 Documentation/user-manual.txt | 15 +++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

"Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2@cox.net> writes:

Thanks. Was there a reason to rewrite "files and history" into "revisions, file contents and logs"? The words "revisions" and "logs" both refer to the same thing and "history" is a good word for it already, so I am puzzled. No strong objection, though...

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 03:29:09 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:

"revisions, file contents and logs was in the second sentence of the first patch. "files and history" was in the first sentence of the first patch.

When I was getting rid of the duplication I decided that "revisions, file contents and logs". As a secondary reason that is the wording in gitweb.txt.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 03:29:09 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
 > "Stephen P. Smith" <ischis2@cox.net> writes:
 > 
 > >  The gitweb cgi script provides users an easy way to browse your
 > > -project's files and history without having to install Git; see the file
 > > -gitweb/INSTALL in the Git source tree for instructions on setting it up.
 > > +project's revisions, file contents and logs without having to install
 > > +Git. Features like RSS/Atom feeds and blame/annotation details may
 > 
 > Thanks.  Was there a reason to rewrite "files and history" into
 > "revisions, file contents and logs"?  The words "revisions" and
 > "logs" both refer to the same thing and "history" is a good word for
 > it already, so I am puzzled.  No strong objection, though...
 > 

[Re-worded my explanation.]
 
"revisions, file contents and logs was in the second sentence of the first patch.
"files and history" was in the first sentence of the first patch.

When I was getting rid of the duplication I decided that "revisions, file contents and logs" was a little more explicit and so decided to keep that wording.

As a secondary reason that is the wording in gitweb.txt.

Stephen & Linda Smith <ischis2@cox.net> writes:

Makes sense; thanks.