On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:29, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On ons, 2009-11-25 at 22:15 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 22:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> > On ons, 2009-11-25 at 16:27 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> >> Attached is a patch which adds a chapter to git in our documentation,
>>> >> around where we have several chapters about cvs today. It also removes
>>> >> a few very out of date comments about cvs
>>> >
>>> > I think this whole chapter could be removed and the relevant information
>>> > added to the web site or the wiki.
>>> >
>>> > (Btw., it's spelled Git, not GIT.)
>>>
>>> Completely, or replaced with a reference to pages on the web/wiki?
>>
>> I think the appendix in question could be removed completely, if the
>> content is adequately covered elsewhere.
>>
>> In the installation instructions chapter, there is a section "Getting
>> the Source", which could warrant a link or reference to the appropriate
>> instructions on the web site.
>
> I have to say I'm not really impressed by the idea of removing things
> from our documentation and replacing them with pages on the wiki. The
> documentation is better-written and easier to navigate. Yeah, the
> part about 28K modems is pretty silly, but we can fix that without
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
Well, my original suggestion had it still there, just not the
documentation that's not really ours to maintain (like how tags and
branches work in cvs). Are you ok with that path? (We already
reference the wiki for "how to work with CVS", so there is nothing new
there)
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
