It's not about documentation but ease to use. I agree and sympathise

very much with the effort of making core Git more easy to use and

obsoleting Cogito, but until it gets there we should have what's nicest
If someone writes a crash course in pure Git covering the same grounds

as the current ones (possibly by just extending/retouching the tutorial)

(it does not necessarily need to be a "refugee" crash course, it can

build up from scratch), I can add it on the web. If it becomes as easy

to use and with as mild learning curve as Cogito, it means Cogito got

mostly obsolete and I'll happily remove the Cogito crash courses from
If you disagree about that fact, can you provide some specific

argumentation?
--

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj

$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1

lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

-

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:31:26 +0100
As some new users have already tried to tell you, it's confusing for

_them_ when they're trying to learn Git to be confronted with Cogito

documentation.  
The way we're going to get Git to be better is to expose new people

to it and respond to their comments, complaints and ideas about how

to make it better and easier to understand as they get up to speed.

Having Cogito plastered all over the Git website as the _easy_

alternative is counterproductive to that effort.  We need fresh

blood looking at the Git documentation and trying to learn Git.
By using the GIT webpage to promote Cogito as the "easy" alternative

you make it look like the entire GIT community is recommending

new users should use Cogito instead.  That does not represent

the views of the entire GIT community.  You should be very careful

to represent the entire community in your role as GIT webmaster.
If people go to a Cogito website, _that's_ where they should learn

about your opinions about why someone should use Cogito in

place of Git.  Cogito isn't "nicest" for users who don't need

its extra functionality, or for getting new users involved in

the improvement effort of native Git.
Sean

-

As a relatively new user myself, I ran into the same confusion when I

came to the website for the first time.  One of the most prominent

things on the front page is the "Git Crash Courses."  Clicking on that

gives me the crash courses, all of which are about Cogito, not for

Git.  So why doesn't the front page say "Cogito Crash Courses"

instead?
And I don't think it matters much whether Cogito makes things easier

or not -- the Git website really should make Git's documentation more

prominent than Cogito's.  I'd expect the opposite of Cogito's website.
It *is* unnecessarily confusing.
--

epistemological humility

  Chris Riddoch

-

I think the difference here is the Git _tool_ vs. the Git version

control system. Cogito is an element of the second: To use Git, you can

either use the Git tool or the Cogito tool or the StGIT tool or even

just the qgit tool (which also lets you inspect the working copy and

commit). I believe the tool best suited for general usage by newbies _at

this point_ is Cogito, so that's what I use for introduction to Git. I'm

not saying this is ideal situation and I and others are/will be working

to fix it.
I'm all for making it more obvious what's going on at the website, I

think the current wording is better. Also, if people believe that a

crash course for core Git would help things, I'm all for it as well.
--

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj

$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1

lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

-