From: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com>
To: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <email@example.com>,
"SZEDER Gábor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com, "Olivier Bornet" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-fsck.txt: include fsck.* config variables
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:32:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190729201236.GF14943@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:12:36 -0400")
Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 08:48:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Before this include let's add:
>> > The below documentation is the same as what’s found in
>> > git-config(1):
>> I actually do not think we would want to do that. I am all for the
>> kind of 'include' proposed by this patch, and we should strive to
>> make it easier for us to make sure the duplicated text are in sync.
>> But that would mean that the readers will have to see the "is the
>> same as the other one" over and over. If our documentation set is
>> consistent, they should not have to.
>> I think we *must* make such a note in a total opposite case,
>> i.e. "here are the summary of the most often used options; for full
>> list, see git-config(1)".
> I disagree. _We_ know that the content is the same, because we are
> looking at the source that says "include". But as a user, how do I know
> when I get to one section or the other that it is something I have
> already read and can skip over?
I want to raise the user expectation so that they would expect from
our documentation, unless we say "these are different", we would
never say conflicting things in two places.
So,... I disagree.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-29 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-29 7:58 Problem with fsck and invalid submodule path in history Olivier Bornet
2019-07-29 9:39 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-07-29 9:59 ` [PATCH] Documentation/git-fsck.txt: include fsck.* config variables SZEDER Gábor
2019-07-29 15:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-07-29 15:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-29 20:12 ` Jeff King
2019-07-29 21:32 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-07-29 14:31 ` Problem with fsck and invalid submodule path in history Olivier Bornet
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).