First of all, you said "someone *already* wrote such manual pages",
but then you point to HTML pages. Do you not understand the
difference between "man" and "HTML"? Ok I don't seriously think that
nobody has made it into man page format, yet why would the subversion
team need to maintain man page format when they already have
automatically generating HTML help (which is ultimately better)?
Further, you will find that for 10 years authors have been
deprecating their `man` pages and generating more manageable formats,
like `info`.
[more below]
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 04:45, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> The example that bothered me was the "info" command. Compare "svn
> help info" to http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/re13.html
>
> "svn help info" is way too short and is missing a lot of
> information. What kinds of details can "svn info" print? Does it
> access the repository, or just the working files? All this
> information (and no useless "cruft") is in the aforementioned Web
> page, which could make a very good manpage, so why not?
>
> Other pages on the svnbook site have different advantages over the
> corresponding "svn help" result. Some have examples of typical
> usage, information on what happens in exceptional cases, and more.
Now I see that you are not even requesting to build "man" pages (after
all, they wouldn't even work in MS Win). You are only saying that you
don't think the docs are complete, or consolidated enough.
I rely on the svnbook. Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think
you're the only one who knew about
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
And yes, it IS the recommended reading to _learn_ svn. Then the `svn
help` stuff is for reference, if you need a little nudge, for example
to remember the syntaxt of `svn import [...]`
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 24 15:48:34 2007