On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I very much disagree with this.
> We need the basic recipes there.imho, you're both right :) simple recipes for the common tasks that are done in a "KDE way" will be of critical value; we can not expect everyone to learn on their own and then expect them to all be proficient or to do things consistently without some basic guidance. so yes, we're going to need to document a few basic things and that will probably involve some very simple illustrative examples. but we also can not get involved in writing a New and Improved Book On Git, either. we ought to rely on external sources for that, as Ossi points out. it's the difference between documenting the "KDE best practices" and teaching people how to use git, right? and it's one of the things that i found CMake's git documentation pages does very well. they don't make too much sense if you don't have a basic understanding of git, and you'll still run into all kinds of issues in practice that aren't covered on those pages, but they give you enough information to get pointed in the right direction and using the right kinds of commands for the different parts of their development workflow. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
