It disappoints me that so few people here read the linked article. This article talks about writing your resume in markdown and only tangentially mentioned git at all in that writing it in markdown will make it versionable. The only direct mention of github is a link to a repo that converts resumes to pdf.

Perhaps the link title should more accurately describe the post content, then. It's up to the author and link submitter to clearly communicate.

Sure, but does that justify commenting on a link without even reading the content?

Keeping your resume in source control makes sense, whatever technology you end up using is completely up to you, all you really need is changelist history.

I agree with you and perhaps someone should change the title. But I am still disappointed one would see fit to dash off 50-100 words without taking the time to read the article. "Ooh, this guy pressed one of my buttons! Here we goooooooo."

My comments actually do reflect the story. The concept is cool, I get it, and it's useful. I'm commenting on the intent of the concept as well as the post title. The intent of your resume being derived from Github means that one believes your code is your "work". Maybe I'm hung up on semantics - i can see how this would be useful for augmenting and dynamically updating the resumes for a certain group.

Some of us share everything as a matter of principle.