Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753410AbYLLTMk (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751077AbYLLTM3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:29 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:56829 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877AbYLLTM2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:28 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20081212182827.28408.40963.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Vajna Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplified GIT usage guide Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:12:13 +0000 Message-ID: <29095.1229109133@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2016 Lines: 47 Johannes Schindelin 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. > > +=============== > > +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. > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/