From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 3 October 2023 by PolarianDev in topic Deletion/editing of regurgitated docs

Deletion/editing of regurgitated docs


The majority of Git#Usage is regurgitated from upstream. This is generally avoided within the archwiki as there is no point maintaining duplicate (and often less useful) documentation than upstream. So I suggest one of the following actions:

  • Remove all the sections which are duplicates, and simply list to the general documentation (
  • Remove the content of each section linking to the specific page within the documentation, for more precise docs.

Personally I believe the latter decisions would be better, otherwise its too 'RTFM', linking directly to upstream articles would make it a lot better, and we only need to document things if upstream doesn't, but due to how good the git documentation is, I am 99% sure that there is not a single thing we can add on, which upstream has not yet documented, it even has break downs on the git protocol.

This will also fix the expansion flag within the branch subsection, because we wouldn't need to expand on something which upstream has already explained very well.

Thank you,
PolarianDev (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm for the latter as a starter, it's easy to remove the subsections later if we wanted. — Lahwaacz (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a note for anyone reading.
I have previously flagged Git#Usage for removal, this is because there is no "change" template, this content needs changing with the upstream documentation links, this is still yet to do. I have not got around to doing this myself so anyone who would like something to do, here it is :)
Git#Usage is also flagged for style (from me again) because it is very messy and hard to read, at least in my opinion. Nothing is split up into subsections which means you can not link to specific parts of the page either which is unhelpful.
I will close this thread once these problems are resolved.
Lahwaacz, sorry for not responding sooner, I also believe the latter is better, people are directed to the exact place they can find their answers instead of a link to another huge set of documentation which they could potentially struggle to find their answer to. I have some (messier) packages which do something similar like Pufferpanel, as it is not worth regurgitating their very well kept documentation in the ArchWiki.
If nobody else does it before I do, I might fix both my flags tomorrow during my Lunch break \o/
Thank you, PolarianDev (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]