On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> 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 a few very out of date comments about cvs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)
Barring protests, I tend to agree that there's little point in keeping
the CVSup documentation around. I don't think it would be a bad thing
to have a little bit of well-written documentation on CVS branches and
tags, especially if it covered things like our particular tagging and
branching conventions. But the current contents of that page don't
appear to be worth much, so I don't think we'd be losing much if we
got rid of it. Of course if someone wanted to rewrite it to be more
useful that might be even better, but I'm not sure anyone wants to put
in the effort.
...Robert