Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplified GIT usage guide

From: David Howells <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:12:13 +0000

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> 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