Re: base

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

[snip]

> I submit that a good model does not need to be based on implementation
> details.

In the case of git, you got this backwards. As the model is so simple,
the implementation is immediate, so when the model is explained it is
easy to get the impression that they are explained the
implementation. And vice-versa: unlike the Emacs redisplay code, it is
easy to describe the model by describing the implementation. They are
almost the same.

Down the thread you say:

>> 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?
>
> I don't need to write down my mental model in order for it to exist.

If you have a mental model, I have my own and the bzr developers each
have theirs... it is a recipe for confussion when we need to
communicate, don't you think? And as your model may not fit the reality
(because it is your creation based on incomplete sources) you may get
upset from time to time because the tool does not act as you expect and
the developers refuse to consider those deviations as bugs.

[snip]