Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] doc: move BreakingChanges to a manpage

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

"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:
>>
>>>> Is there any interest in continuing this series?
>>>
>>> For myself, I favor making more of Git's documentation accessible to folks.
>>
>> 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is whether keeping such a historical document is worth it.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?