Suggested paragraph change in Chapter 4 just before figure 4.3.

Brown, NeilX D neilx.d.brown at
Wed Jul 6 18:22:53 CDT 2011

Hi Michael,

Re:  r3881 cool.  Thanks.

Re: Index.  Can I help?  How?  (I've _never_ done this kind of thing before
but I use indexes a _lot_ and am bloody sick of bitching about them without
anyone ever getting back to me.  You did.  Which tools do I learn that don't
involve paying money to Adobe and where do I get the relevant 'current'
source material?)  Or am I stuck with whining to O'Reilly in hopes that
someday they have the resources available to listen?  :-)

Oops.  I just noticed something.  I don't want anyone getting in trouble or
getting any mistaken ideas. . . .

INTEL is NOT my employer nor will they provide or paying for anything
I do.  I do not represent INTEL.  Neither do I even know any INTEL policies
or PR position(s).  Nothing I say or do should be taken to in _ANY_ way
reflect upon INTEL or in _ANY_ sense represents INTEL policy, statements,
commitments, or endorsements because they do _not_ have any relation.

In fact furtherance of this conversation should continue with neilb at
which reflects the fact that I am only acting in my personal capacity.


From: C. Michael Pilato [cmpilato at] On Behalf Of C. Michael Pilato [cmpilato at]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Brown, NeilX D
Cc: svnbook-dev at; neilb at
Subject: Re: Suggested paragraph change in Chapter 4 just before figure 4.3.

On 05/24/2011 03:02 PM, Brown, NeilX D wrote:
> It would be accurate as well as less confusing to phrase this more along the lines of
> 'has to copy every file and subdirectory within the working copy you have checked
> out on your local disk'.

I made a similar tweak in r3881, further tightening up the scope of that
comment to just the copied directory in the working copy (not even the whole
working copy).

> Also, could you please, please, put a _lot_ more work into the index?  It is way too short,
> way too incomplete, and makes no effort to distinguish between "definition", "substantive
> discussion", and "references in passing".  Accordingly I often can not find an item in the
> index, when I do the discussion I am looking for isn't even listed, or I have to go thru 8
> references where 7 are as trivial as mentioning the item in passing in a list of things.  All
> 3 of these drawbacks lead to frustration, delay, and often to confusion ("What was I
> looking for again?").

The index is a total wasteland.  O'Reilly provided indexing services for the
published form of the book, but none of that work made it back into the open
source codebase.  What's present now is mostly just my poking around in
DocBook XML's support for index stuffs and is *in no way* meant to be
consider exhaustive.  More like, "exhausting".

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato at> |

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list