From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoak...@iee.org> writes:
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
I think we already use a nicer way to set up a page alias to keep
old links working than making a copy in Documentation/; please mimic
that if possible.
This was mainly about ensuring that the 'git help' command could
access these extra extra guides that it currently misses. (Tt also
misses the 'user-manual', which isn't a man page, but could have a
link page to guide the seeker of truth between 'git help' and the
actual user-manual)
The only method I can see for that (via help.c) is to get the
filename
format correct. Where you thinking of something else?
I do not have an objection against the creation of giteveryday.txt;
I was questioning the way the original everyday.txt was left behind
to bit-rot. It is good to keep _something_ there, because there may
be old URLs floating around that point at Documentation/everyday.txt,
but the contents of that file does not have to be a stale copy.
Cf. bd4a3d61 (Rename {git- => git}remote-helpers.txt, 2013-01-31)
for how we renamed git-remote-helpers.txt to gitremote-helpers.txt
The commit also highlighted a couple of other places I needed to update
What's the right set of options for format-patch to avoid the bulk
deletions and bulk insertions between the old an new versions? That
commit was amended in situ, so never had the three way
delete/move/create problem.
We have:
everyday.txt (old) -> delete
everyday.txt (new) ->create (<5% similarity)
everyday.txt (old) -> giteveryday.txt (>95% similarity)
It just feels that 400+ lines of complete deletion doesn't need to be in
the summary patch. I have it in my mind that we always end up with the
deletions being listed.
Philip
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
