For lack of good Git documentation and manuals, I started my own.

  This manual is aimed at technical people.

There seems to be a lack of well-written manuals, and Git's online
documentation itself is atrocious. While I do not expect the
writers to have taken any course in pedagogy or didactics, or even
have any practical experience, I at least expect the writers to try
to keep those aspects in mind, but that does not seem to be the case.

Documentation should first introduce the concept, then the
implementation; that is, first how to get started, then what it is
doing*. In other words, first how to create a Git repository and the
absolute essentials, then introduce Git itself. Readers want to read
the chapters in their order, if they do not have anything specific in
mind.

Documentation should then give you brief documentation of
everything you need to know in the order of its importance, then
iterate to the more advanced.

One of the most important parts is not to start with dangerous
commands just because it is easier. Try to do it right from the
beginning, otherwise the wrong way will stick in the reader's memory.



*  This is a concept called ‘concrete before abstract’. While I
   disagree that it is always the best practice, I do think so in
   this case.