On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:21:44AM -0500, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM, John Tapsell <johnf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But how would a similar work flow except there are multiple fixes
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Yes. Great. IMHO that type of documentation is what is needed in techbase.
>
in fact, that's exactly the type that does *not* belong there. there is
enough generic git documentation out there, and bloating techbase by
duplicating it all won't make it simpler to use. the right way is
stating the desired goals, mentioning a few key phrases ("interactive
rebase" in this case) and linking to some external source.
and remember that following receipes does *not* work if you don't
actually understand what you are doing - there may always be some
circumstances that make it a receipe for disaster. and from experience i
can tell that some people are astonishingly stubborn with ignoring signs
of disaster ...
