Git development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Cc: "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com>,
	 git@vger.kernel.org,  "Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@pks.im>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] doc: move BreakingChanges to a manpage
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 09:38:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq5wytitcj.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a219a76c-faf5-4c50-9560-bf48f65167e4@app.fastmail.com> (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:18:27 +0200")

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026, at 23:00, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026, at 18:50, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I do not know about "manual pages", but making this available from
>>>> "git help" would be good.  It raises a huge question about what to
>>>> do when Git 3.0 comes, though.  Are we going to change every section
>>>> and rewrite them to say "we used to do this differently before 3.0"?
>>>
>>> See me and Patrick’s subthread: <ar0OicAaDipYx-xU@pks.im>
>>>
>>> You could transform it into a section at the end for “what happened in 3.0” then introduce it with
>>>
>>>     These things changed in 3.0. They are written in the future tense
>>>     [?] is reading about what will happen coming from version 2.98 to
>>>     3.0.
>>>
>>> Then you wouldn’t need to change any of the rest of the text.
>>
>> The rewriting effort is not a major concern.  Rather, the question
>> is whether keeping such a historical document is worth it.  Do you
>> still care about what the major issues were when we transitioned
>> from Git 1.x to 2.0, for example?
>
> I’ve mostly just outlined how either approach can be handled. Personally
> I’m fine either way.
>
> As far as being a living document is concerned, discussions of old
> versions could be promptly deleted. People who are on older versions
> will have the relevant discussion in their installation. Beyond that
> people can use the power of version control spelunking.
>
> As an alternative you could keep just the previous breaking change
> discussion like mentioned in <ar0cjf3rdrp6NAba@pks.im>. Like, when
> you’re approaching Git 5.0 there will just be Git 5.0 and Git 4.0
> discussions left in the doc.

OK.  I was merely expressing my worry that it might be awkward post
the transition, but if the manpages (where? in section 7 perhaps) is
the easiest to arrange and will not be awkward to have after the
transition, then let's do that.

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-22 16:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-28 10:41 [RFC PATCH 0/4] doc: move BreakingChanges to a manpage kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-09-28 10:41 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] doc: transform breaking changes doc " kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-09-30 13:28   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-30 14:17     ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-09-30 14:28       ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-28 10:41 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] doc: gitbreaking-changes: replace msg-ids with URLs kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-09-30 13:28   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-30 14:09     ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-09-30 19:45     ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-01  6:27       ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-10-03 11:52       ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-03 14:10         ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-04  2:31         ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-06 16:38           ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-06 20:33             ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-28 10:41 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] doc: gitbreaking-changes: add note about living document kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-09-28 10:41 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] doc: git: mention gitbreaking-changes(7) kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] doc: move BreakingChanges to a manpage kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27   ` [PATCH v2 1/5] doc: BreakingChanges: transform " kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:46     ` D. Ben Knoble
2026-10-09  8:24       ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27   ` [PATCH v2 2/5] doc: gitbreaking-changes: create from BreakingChanges kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27   ` [PATCH v2 3/5] doc: gitbreaking-changes: replace msg-ids with URLs kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27   ` [PATCH v2 4/5] doc: gitbreaking-changes: add note about living document kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-08 19:27   ` [PATCH v2 5/5] doc: gitbreaking-changes: move new-items discussion to the end kristofferhaugsbakk
2026-10-20 13:31   ` [PATCH v2 0/5] doc: move BreakingChanges to a manpage Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-20 13:48     ` D. Ben Knoble
2026-10-20 13:53       ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-21 16:50       ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-21 18:01         ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-21 21:00           ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-22  5:18             ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-22 16:38               ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-10-22  5:54             ` Patrick Steinhardt

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqq5wytitcj.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=ben.knoble@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox