Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gitfaq: append the 'Common Issues' section

[Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com>]

On 16/04 12:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> writes:

> "to ignore files from getting tracked in the working tree" is why
> you may want to use the '.gitignore' file.  That is OK.  But the
> connection to the next sentence, especially the subject "This
> ignores", is hard to grok.  I am guessing that you want to tell the
> users something like
> 
> 	Paths that match patterns listed in the `.gitignore` are
> 	not meant to be tracked.
> 
> 	The act of adding a pattern in `.gitignore` that matches a
> 	set of paths that are not tracked is a declaration that you
> 	do not intend to track these paths and a request by you to
> 	Git to help you achieve that goal.
> 
> but you are trying to state it in a more approachable manner.  But I
> sense that you ended up being unclear.

I apologise for this. I am understanding the concepts but I fail to put
them in words in English. I will try my best to not degrade the quality
of important documentation such as this one.
 
> This part is very much in line with the "you are declaring and
> requesting".  The user does not want to track these paths
> Having commented on this section, I am not sure why we need so much
> description here, instead of clarifying the existing documentation
> of the mechanism in the Documentation/gitignore.txt file.
> 
> I think it is better to limit the FAQ list to two kinds of entries:
> 
>  * A topic that spans multiple mechanisms and features that is not
>    easy to explain in a single documentation page may have to be
>    described in place.
> 
>  * Other topics that already have authoritative description with
>    adequate clarity in other pages should just have a summary
>    paragraph that is less than 5 sentences, and a pointer to the
>    authoritative page.
> 
> The `.gitignore` topic should fall into the latter category.  It is
> a separate issue if Documentation/gitignore.txt has rooms for
> improvement and if so, I think it is more productive to propose a
> patch to it there, not adding too much description on the topic
> here.

I have seen this problem occur a lot so I decided to put it in the FAQ.
I will try to shorten it and make it more 'to the point'.

Regards,
Shourya Shukla