Re: [PATCH] Simplified GIT usage guide
- From
- David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Date
- Dec 12, 2008, 19:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <29095.1229109133@redhat.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0812121952320.5873@eeepc-johanness>
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > +I don't really know what I'm doing with GIT either. > > Strike the "either".
The whole point of the introduction is that this is aimed at someone who doesn't know what they're doing, so IMO the "either" is quite correct here.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > +=============== > > +OVERVIEW OF GIT > > +=============== > > Your overview seems to be what "Git from the bottom up" is all about (see > the Git Wiki for more information where to find it).
The problem is I need to describe some terminology, and the best way to do that is with some pictures. I was wondering if I should break this out into a separate document and simplify what I keep.
In my opinion, it's much easier to deal with if you can visualise how it works, even if that visualisation isn't a true representation of reality, which references Miklos's points.
Show 6 quoted lines
> From my experience with new users, this is exactly the wrong way to go > about it. You don't introduce object types of the Git database before > telling the users what the heck they are good for. And most users do not > need to bother with tree objects either, anyway. So maybe you just tell > them what the heck the object types are good for, without even teaching > them the object types at all.
Perhaps. The main thing I want to introduce is the idea of a tree with three levels, as it were: commits, directories, files.
> So I think that your document might do a good job scaring people away from > Git. But I do not believe that your document, especially in the tone it > is written, does a good job of helping Git newbies.
Hmmm. So what would you suggest is a good way to write for GIT newbies? Is it just that the overview should be canned or drastically simplified?
David