[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: base
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: base |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:57:43 +0300 |
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,
> address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:43:05 +0900
>
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
> > Thanks. However, what you wrote just shows once again that we are
> > talking on two very different levels. Your "user" is actually a
> > hacker who wants to know and understand a lot about low-level
> > details of the tool's operation.
>
> No. I'm saying that the project needs a few users who understand at
> that level, and that therefore it is important to have such a model.
This is the first time this particular issue comes up. Until now, the
views with which I was arguing seemed to tell that _any_ user needs
such an understanding to use a dVCS safely and efficiently.
> I apologize for not making it clear that I do understand that average
> users can do fine without deep understanding (but with competent
> guidance).
That's okay, at least we are now in partial agreement. Not sure
others agree, though.
> My main point is that somebody like you who has intervened in the
> process of recommending workflows really should have a good model.
Maybe. I simply don't yet have enough experience to make my own
opinion. Neither does Emacs as a project, I think. So I will take
your word for it, for now.
> > quite efficiently (no thanks to bzr docs), without having a
> > slightest idea how it represents the history DAG or what are all
> > those files in the .bzr subdirectories of my repository.
>
> Er, Eli, I didn't mention any of those files (or their analogs in
> git), and I don't recall the docs I pointed to describing them,
> although it did mention their existence.
The docs you pointed to do describe them. This page, for example:
http://book.git-scm.com/1_git_directory_and_working_directory.html
> > Contrary to what you say, these are, IMO, private data, not public
> > data; for example, if bzr changes its repository format, I as a
> > user don't care as long as there's a simple way of upgrading to the
> > new format.
>
> But the point is that often there isn't a simple way. In fact, on one
> of my platforms I'm currently stuck without a usable bzr because
> Ubuntu Jaunty provides bzr 1.13, and that doesn't do format 2a, which
> is required for Launchpad. Upgrading Ubuntu is not an easy option for
> me, either.
Well, when things get broken, you need a technician to fix them. Most
users aren't technicians. Projects shouldn't choose tools that become
broken or could break the project to the degree that most users
couldn't fix without calling a technician.
- Re: base, (continued)
- Re: base, Uday S Reddy, 2010/08/26
- Re: base, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/08/26
- Re: base, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/08/26
- Re: base, Leo, 2010/08/26
- Re: base, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/08/27
- Re: base,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: base, David Kastrup, 2010/08/27
- Re: base, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/08/27
- Re: base, Leo, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Juanma Barranquero, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Teemu Likonen, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Uday S Reddy, 2010/08/25
- Re: base, Miles Bader, 2010/08/24
- Re: base, Miles Bader, 2010/08/24