On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 05:17:01PM -0500, linux@horizon.com wrote:This is really, really good stuff that you've written! Have you any thoughts or suggestions about where this text should end up? Personally, I think this information is actually more important to an end-user than the current "part two" of the tutorial, which discusses the object database and the index file. Perhaps this should be "part 2", and the object database and index file should become "part 3"? It might also be a good to consider moving some of the "discussion" portion the top-level git(7) man page into the object database and index file discussion. Right now, the best way to introduce git's concepts (IMHO), is to start with the part 1 of the tutorial, then go into the your draft branch/merging with git, then the current part 2 of the tutorial, and then direct folks to read the "discussion" section of git(7). Only then do they really have enough background understanding of the fundamental concepts of git that they won't get confused when they start talking to other git users, on the git mailing list, for example. It would be nice if there was an easy way to direct users through the documentation in a way which makes good pedagogical sense. Right now, one of the reasons why life gets hard for new users is that the current tutorials aren't enough for them to really undersatnd what's going on at a conceptual level. And if users start using "everyday git" as a crutch, without the right background concepts, the human brain naturally tries to intuit what's happening in the background, but without reading the background docs, git is different enough that they will probably get it wrong, which means more stuff that they have to unlearn later. Hmm... this assumes that you've read the Git(7) discussion first. There is enough information here though that maybe you don't need to say "as you recall". It might be enough to give a quick summary of the concepts that are needed to understand the rest of your tutorial, and then point to git(7) Discussion section for people who need to learn more details. Maybe we should change git so that a "Fetch: " line in the remotes file works the same way as "Pull: ", and then recommend that people use "Fetch: " in order to reduce confusion, as opposed to simply explaining it away as "yet another example of the histororical fetch/pull confusion"? Thanks, - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Kamalesh Babulal | [BUILD-FAILURE] 2.6.26-rc8-mm1 - build failure at drivers/char/hvc_rtas.c |
| Luciano Rocha | usb hdd problems with 2.6.27.2 |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Christoph Lameter | Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
git: | |
