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 is whether keeping such a historical document is worth it.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.
next prev parent 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