Re: Rewriting the Git tutorial to cover less content

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Julia Evans" <julia@jvns.ca> writes:

> I don't understand what you mean by "replace the current one". 

If giteveryday for example is so stale and unusable, we should drop
the entire file.  If there were some topics in there that can be
salvagd, we should freshly explain these topics elsewhere in our
documentation, and starting a new document is one way to do so.
Then we "replaced" the current "giteveryday" with something else.

> Some interpretations I can imagine:
>
> 1. The documentation remains internally consistent, like if it says
>    "see <page> for <information>", then the information is in fact on that page
> 2. Any information explained in a guide must always be explained a
>     in some guide in the future
> 3. We should aim to make guides more _useful_ over time: on average,
>     a user reading the new version of the guide should come away having
>     learned more relevant-to-them information about Git than with the
>     old guide.
> 4. The original intent of a guide needs to be maintained.

>> I do not know if we have bandwidth to keep external links fresh, and
>> having a set of links to stale pages ourselves may hurt more than
>> help.
>
> We've had a list of links like this since 2013, at https://git-scm.com/doc/ext. 
> It definitely has broken links and it would be pretty easy to update
> some of them once, which would help in the short term.

Dealing with broken links is easier as we can just remove them.
Noticing a link that points at an unmaintained stale document that
describes what used to be relevant but no longer in today's
environment and replacing it with something more relevant was what I
am worried about.