Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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"). -- 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
