Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] SubmittingPatches: remove pine-specific hints from MUA hints

From: Dave Huseby <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 07:42:35 -0700

On 13.05.2021 09:50, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>So I do think that if we're including such a niche guide we're better
>off splitting it into another file and linking to it, same with the
>whole guide in SubmittingPatches now teaching people to manually craft a
>patch without using git-format-patch, another obscure edge case we give
>too much space / causes distraction.

I agree with you on this approach. There's one other subtle distinction
that I realized last night and that is the distinction between best
practices for using email for working *with* Git and using email for
working *on* Git. I think Junio pointed it out in the thread on writing
down the mailing list etiquette that the Git project itself has its own
etiquette that is likely different than the etiquette of other projects
that use Git and email. Maybe we should make that distinction clearer.

SubmittingPatches and MyFirstContribution.txt are clearly about using
email and Git to work *on* Git. So is the MailingListEtiquette.txt file
I'm proposing in the other thread. Some of the tips that would go into
MUA-specific files would only apply to using email and Git to work *on*
Git while others are likely to be about using email and Git to work
*with* Git. It is subtle but important.

IMO, I think we should have a Documentation/WorkingOnGit subfolder where
all of the documentation for the Git project resides just to clarify the
distinction.

>In this case though I think saying anything about pine crosses the line
>from niche to obscure archaeology. We're inlining a patch for abandoned
>software that has a replacement. If we're going to say anything about
>Pine in such a list I think it should be:
>
>    Pine: abandoned and has known flowed text bugs, use its successor
>    alpine or another MUA instead.

I'm good with this. I suppose the old docs are always in Git history.

Cheers!
Dave