|
From: | Uday S Reddy |
Subject: | Re: base |
Date: | Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:25:03 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
On 8/26/2010 10:16 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
(For the record, I wrote such a document a few months ago and submitted it to the bzr developers. I have no idea when it will become part of the official docs.)
I found it on the Bazaar list. It is a good start. I don't see why there is any idea that DAGs are supposed to be avoided. The only thing technical about DAGs is their name. Everybody that can read a map knows DAGs.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, the quality of documentation in the bzr project leaves a lot to be desired. But we should distinguish between inadequacy of the existing documentation and the basis upon which to create a coherent mental model that should be presented to users. This subthread started with an assertion that such a model does not exist for bzr, but does exist for other dVCSs. This is the issue here, not whether bzr documenters did a good job.
Well, isn't this kind of "existence" meta-physical? If it hasn't been written down, and generally agreed upon by all the participants, what sense does it exist in? Sure, many of us users possibly form some mental model based on our narrow experience. (And, perhaps, some users don't.) But those models may or may not explain all aspects of the software. To really exist, they have to be used and validated by practice.
Without a good conceptual model, it is doubtful if they can use it "safely and efficiently."100% agreement.
Ok, glad to be in agreement. But, note that simplified models are only starting points. Good models have to explain everything that happens. You can start by ignoring air resistance to understand gravity. But, don't start flying airplanes without understanding air resistance.
Cheers, Uday
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |