On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
quoted text
> I am torn.  On one side I like the Wiki approach.  On the other hand, the=
=20
quoted text
> Wiki will get less review by git oldtimers, whereas the patches to=20
> user-manual are usually reviewed as thoroughly as the code patches.

No offense, but review by old timers can be both a blessing and a curse.
Well, it's not the "review" that is so much a problem as the "editorial
control."  In my opinion (and I believe this is what the original poster
was saying), the official Git User Manual focuses more on technical
issues and less on introducing git to a new user.

This makes perfect sense given that it's edited by oldtimers, who are
neither inclined nor particularly suited to explaining git to newbies;
they have simply forgotten what it was like for these concepts to be
foreign.  They eat SHA1 hashes for breakfast and dream about index
files.  And that's great :)

I don't think the wikibook should try to duplicate the Git User Manual.
That would be a wasted effort.  But there is a niche to be filled in git
documentation, particularly in regard to specific workflows and git best
practices.  With git, TMTOWTDI.  It's quite difficult for a newbie to
know which of those ways will come back and bite them in the ass down the
road.

Of course, it is a wikibook, so it will go where it goes.  I for one am
glad to see this project started.
--=20
-Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@gmail.com>
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 =3D 4
B2F1 0ECC E605 7321 E818  7A65 FC81 9777 DC28 9E8F=20