From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Yet another Git tutorial Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20080428093628.GA20299@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <2D3D2E55-74C7-4373-BC22-9CF4C26C197D@newartisans.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: John Wiegley X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 28 11:37:51 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JqPnr-00022E-6A for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:37:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933338AbYD1Jgd (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932427AbYD1Jgc (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:32 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:2715 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755882AbYD1Jgb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 5092 invoked by uid 111); 28 Apr 2008 09:36:29 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:29 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:36:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2D3D2E55-74C7-4373-BC22-9CF4C26C197D@newartisans.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:39:46AM -0400, John Wiegley wrote: > I published another tutorial on Git today, this one describing the > system from a "bottom up" perspective. I know it's been written about > this way before, but I was aiming at a bit more thoroughness, and a > paced introduction to the basics. I like the "bottom up" approach as well (and in fact, I gave a similarly structured talk to some computer scientists a month or two ago). But I have seen some comments from some users that imply to me they prefer a "top down" approach. So I'm curious: did you write this to show to some specific audience, and if so, how did the audience receive it? IOW, did they like the "bottom up" technique? -Peff