Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2008, #03; Fri, 19)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 19, 2008, 22:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk5d7pxep.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <200809200020.32285.trast@student.ethz.ch>
Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Regarding _the_ recommended workflow, I can think of a few possible > approaches: > > a) Authoritative: either because we really believe it's the One True > Workflow, or just because we want to sound so. > > b) Descriptive: describe it as the workflow "we" use (presumably this > includes linux.git which may be worth mentioning; I haven't touched > the kernel though). > > c) Encyclopedic: describe and classify as many recipes (building > blocks) and workflows as possible in an attempt to build a > complete reference of sorts. > > d) Blind eye: we're just the tool. Others can devise workflows. > > I certainly aimed the patch at (a), since I wanted to be able to point > people at it (mostly on #git). The resources I learned Git with, > except for the videos, just show simple examples of pull/push usage, > which I found both unsatisfactory (e.g. I want to know _why_ it's a > good idea to make topic branches) and incomplete. This list is an > excellent place to learn, but I doubt that's an effort the average > user is willing to put in.
I think we should be honest and not try to do (a) nor (c). And as I already said, as (b) your description looked fine, but it wasn't very encouraging that not many people commented on it (nor said "Yeah, that's what I was missing, thanks").