From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2008, #03; Fri, 19) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:45:50 -0700 Message-ID: <7vk5d7pxep.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vprmzrh7w.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <200809200020.32285.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 20 00:47:07 2008 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 1Kgoki-0008IV-2p for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:47:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751371AbYISWp4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:45:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751362AbYISWp4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:45:56 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:55307 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751333AbYISWpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:45:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42D962F93; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1920962F91; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:45:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200809200020.32285.trast@student.ethz.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:20:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B7C6BF24-869C-11DD-AD05-D0CFFE4BC1C1-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thomas Rast 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").