From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Git and GCC Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:45:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <4aca3dc20712051947t5fbbb383ua1727c652eb25d7e@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.202047.58135920.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052032n521c344cla07a5df1f2c26cb8@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.204848.227521641.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052111o730f6fb6h7a329ee811a70f28@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Daniel Berlin , David Miller , ismail@pardus.org.tr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, git@vger.kernel.org To: NightStrike X-From: gcc-return-142758-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Dec 06 19:46:49 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcc@gmane.org Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J0LkB-00031b-Cb for gcc@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:46:43 +0100 Received: (qmail 4770 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2007 18:46:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 4762 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2007 18:46:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org (HELO smtp2.linux-foundation.org) (207.189.120.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:46:18 +0000 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id lB6IjfUu023394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:45:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id lB6Ijebt006254; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:45:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org Archived-At: On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, NightStrike wrote: > > No disrespect is meant by this reply. I am just curious (and I am > probably misunderstanding something).. Why remove all of the > documentation entirely? Wouldn't it be better to just document it > more thoroughly? Well, part of it is that I don't think "--aggressive" as it is implemented right now is really almost *ever* the right answer. We could change the implementation, of course, but generally the right thing to do is to not use it (tweaking the "--window" and "--depth" manually for the repacking is likely the more natural thing to do). The other part of the answer is that, when you *do* want to do what that "--aggressive" tries to achieve, it's such a special case event that while it should probably be documented, I don't think it should necessarily be documented where it is now (as part of "git gc"), but as part of a much more technical manual for "deep and subtle tricks you can play". > I thought you did a fine job in this post in explaining its purpose, > when to use it, when not to, etc. Removing the documention seems > counter-intuitive when you've already gone to the trouble of creating > good documentation here in this post. I'm so used to writing emails, and I *like* trying to explain what is going on, so I have no problems at all doing that kind of thing. However, trying to write a manual or man-page or other technical documentation is something rather different. IOW, I like explaining git within the _context_ of a discussion or a particular problem/issue. But documentation should work regardless of context (or at least set it up), and that's the part I am not so good at. In other words, if somebody (hint hint) thinks my explanation was good and readable, I'd love for them to try to turn it into real documentation by editing it up and creating enough context for it! But I'm nort personally very likely to do that. I'd just send Junio the patch to remove a misleading part of the documentation we have. Linus