On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 03:45:46PM -0500, Michael Witten wrote: > However, a discussion of blobs, trees, commits, objects, and > references isn't necessarily low-level. It seems to me that it is a > high-level understanding of the git world. Without those > *definitions*, people are left to their own wrong, inconsistent > thoughts. > > The low-level stuff is HOW those concepts have been used in the > implementation of git: Where certain files are stored, how certain > bytes are organized in memory, what are the underlying porcelain > tools, etc. That what's low-level. I think I wasn't clear in my original message. I didn't mean teaching low-level stuff like plumbing or file layouts. By "bottom-up" I really meant teaching concepts (like objects, their types, and references), from which user operations and workflows can be explained (or often deduced by the user). Whereas a top-down approach would _start_ with workflows and say "To accomplish X, do Y". So I think we are in agreement about the right "level" to start at. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html