Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2008, #03; Fri, 19)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> 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").