Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> 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 git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
