mbox series

[v2,0/3] Additional FAQ entries

Message ID 20211107225525.431138-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series Additional FAQ entries | expand

Message

brian m. carlson Nov. 7, 2021, 10:55 p.m. UTC
This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.

I've opted not to include backing up repositories in the syncing patch
because I think they're separate topics.  We could well end up with an
additional FAQ entry on that topic, which is left as an exercise for the
reader.

Changes from v1:
* Drop the monorepo patch for now; I want to revise it further.
* Reorder the working tree patch to place more warnings up front.
* Mention core.gitproxy and socat.
* Rephrase text in the EOL entry to read correctly and be easier to
  understand.
* Improve the commit message for the working tree FAQ entry to make it
  clearer that users wish to transfer uncommitted changes.

brian m. carlson (3):
  gitfaq: add documentation on proxies
  gitfaq: give advice on using eol attribute in gitattributes
  gitfaq: add entry about syncing working trees

 Documentation/gitfaq.txt | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Eric Sunshine Nov. 8, 2021, 12:16 a.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:55 PM brian m. carlson
<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
> topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
> Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.
>
> Changes from v1:
> * Drop the monorepo patch for now; I want to revise it further.
> * Reorder the working tree patch to place more warnings up front.
> * Mention core.gitproxy and socat.
> * Rephrase text in the EOL entry to read correctly and be easier to
>   understand.
> * Improve the commit message for the working tree FAQ entry to make it
>   clearer that users wish to transfer uncommitted changes.

Thanks for re-rolling. FAQ entries are, of course, bikeshedding
fodder, so I left a number of bikeshedding comments and pointed out
one minor typo. Whether any of the comments warrant a re-roll or are
even worth discussing is a matter of opinion, and they could certainly
all be addressed later (by someone) atop the current series if
desired; I don't think any of the comments were blockers.
Johannes Schindelin Jan. 4, 2022, 1:53 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Eric,

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, Eric Sunshine wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:55 PM brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> > This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
> > topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
> > Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.
> >
> > Changes from v1:
> > * Drop the monorepo patch for now; I want to revise it further.
> > * Reorder the working tree patch to place more warnings up front.
> > * Mention core.gitproxy and socat.
> > * Rephrase text in the EOL entry to read correctly and be easier to
> >   understand.
> > * Improve the commit message for the working tree FAQ entry to make it
> >   clearer that users wish to transfer uncommitted changes.
>
> Thanks for re-rolling. FAQ entries are, of course, bikeshedding
> fodder,

That is one possible perspective. Another possible perspective is that FAQ
entries are the first thing users in distress might turn to, so the more
helpful they are, the better. Maybe it would make sense to focus on that
a bit more. As in your suggestion to name cloud sync providers by name, to
make the FAQ entry eminently more "findable". To me, that did not at all
feel like pointless bike-shedding, but more like a really valuable
improvement that users will appreciate (even if they will be oblivious of
the fact that they appreciate it, of course).

Ciao,
Dscho
Johannes Schindelin Jan. 4, 2022, 1:54 p.m. UTC | #3
Hi brian,

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:

> This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
> topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
> Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.
>
> I've opted not to include backing up repositories in the syncing patch
> because I think they're separate topics.  We could well end up with an
> additional FAQ entry on that topic, which is left as an exercise for the
> reader.

Makes sense.

You hinted in the thread that you were planning on submitting a v3. I hope
that my feedback regarding `core.gitproxy` is still in time for that.

Thank you,
Dscho
brian m. carlson Jan. 6, 2022, 1:58 a.m. UTC | #4
On 2022-01-04 at 13:54:52, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi brian,
> 
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
> 
> > This series introduces some additional Git FAQ entries on various
> > topics.  They are all things I've seen in my professional life or on
> > Stack Overflow, so I've written documentation.
> >
> > I've opted not to include backing up repositories in the syncing patch
> > because I think they're separate topics.  We could well end up with an
> > additional FAQ entry on that topic, which is left as an exercise for the
> > reader.
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> You hinted in the thread that you were planning on submitting a v3. I hope
> that my feedback regarding `core.gitproxy` is still in time for that.

I can definitely include that in v3.  I'm hoping I can get to it later
this week or during the weekend before my schedule becomes busy again.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments.