Doc review & quick ref card - anyone with some DTP skills?

[Ian Clatworthy]

John Yates wrote:
> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
>>> John Yates wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is why this is not a "Quick Reference".  It would be much
>>> more correctly termed a "Quick Start Guide".
>> IMO, it's *a* Quick Reference, just not *the* Quick Reference. Maybe we
>> should rename it "Bazaar Essentials Quick Reference" or something like
>> that?
> 
> On the wiki this document is now advertised as a "one page summary of
> Bazaar".  It is nothing of the sort.

Agreed. I changed the description to "keep these close by".

> In 35 years in engineering I have never encountered a document titled
> a Reference that did not attempt to be complete and authoritative.  The
> current document probably has a role but it is tutorial, not reference.
> 
> Here is an svn example of a "one-pager" (assuming you have a duplexing
> printer) that can legitimately purport to be a reference document:
> 
>   http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/csobaniec/Papers/svn-refcard.pdf

Nice.

> Our document is an introduction, a summary, a "for dummies", ... nearly
> anything but a reference.

You're right. It is really useful (IMO) but it needs a different title
and we do need a real quick reference as you've illustrated above.

Ian C.