From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: VC mode and git Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 07:41:53 +0900 Message-ID: <87384ghm1a.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <83twx2xoc8.fsf@gnu.org> <87619hke3u.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <551A3F17.6020903@math.ntnu.no> <20150331085055.GA2871@acm.fritz.box> <87zj6tiko1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20150331104935.GB2871@acm.fritz.box> <87y4mdi7tj.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20150331214347.GH2871@acm.fritz.box> <20150401103225.GA2633@acm.fritz.box> <87h9t080gx.fsf@javad.com> <83384jsx3o.fsf@gnu.org> <83pp7nrfdn.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8yqr226.fsf@gnu.org> <831tk2qvz5.fsf@gnu.org> <87384ii26v.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83wq1tptvp.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp7lhc9h.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83sichpqe9.fsf@gnu.org> <87ioddglu6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83a8yoq56m.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1428100941 24287 80.91.229.3 (3 Apr 2015 22:42:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sorganov@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 04 00:42:12 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YeAHz-0002VJ-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 00:42:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35727 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YeAHz-0001Ng-0l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:42:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51165) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YeAHw-0001Na-5J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:42:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YeAHu-0003dv-S1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:42:08 -0400 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:58096) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YeAHq-0003Yg-In; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:42:03 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2067F1C3891; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 07:41:54 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E59E1120EC9; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 07:41:53 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83a8yoq56m.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" 83e5c3cd6be6 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.161 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:184850 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Teaching people new things often requires to start without rigor, > because otherwise you risk losing your audience. Being > "technically correct", but confusing instead of explanatory is not > helpful. Eli, you can't have it both ways. When I use the shorthand common in the git community and defined in the glossary, you excoriate me for lack of rigor (in different but equivalent words). > > > I don't even understand all this attitude: do we want Git newbies > > > to become more proficient in using Git, > > > > No, we want to support their efforts to become more productive using > > git. > > Take it from a bystander: that's not how many messages in this thread > sound. I agree. You are quite correct that my phrasing was ambiguous; what I meant by "we want to" is "in an ideal world this channel should be focusing on ..., and avoiding flammable terminology". > > If they want to become proficient, I don't think there's any > > problem. But Alan and Richard have expressed a rather strong desire > > to learn *nothing* about git > > They didn't say that, please re-read their messages with open eyes. OK, "nothing" is an unwarranted exaggeration. > What they did say is (a) they don't like investing an inordinate > amount of time and effort into studying Git, and (b) they would like > to keep their previous workflows as much as possible. > So if we want to help them become proficient, we need to go with them > and educate them while trying to honor these 2 desires. My opinion that is that given what Richard and Alan apparently consider to be "inordinate effort", we are unlikely to get to a point where they know enough to make an informed decision. Richard has yet to say anything about git that doesn't involve exaggeration and unnecessary pejoratives, and he's already gotten impatient enough to force the issue by installing changes himself. > > yet insist on workflows that are infeasible if they remain ignorant > > of the details and options of git. > > They are not infeasible. They need only minor adaptations, see > GitQuickStartForEmacsDevs. Those adaptations do not require any > details and options of git, just one new command. If you say so. I'll be interested to see what Richard installs. I wouldn't be surprised if it obviously fails to solve a few of the several issues he has reported. > > > If the former, why do we insist on being "technically correct" > > > instead of explaining things in a way they could be understood? > > > > Because it's entirely unclear to me what they are asking. > > If you don't understand what they are asking, may I suggest that you > wait with your answers until you do, or ask someone else? OK, I'll do that. I've wasted far too much time on this thread. > > Richard is incapable of describing what he actually did, yet bridles > > at any suggestion that his actions were involved in messing things > > up (despite repeated admissions that he forgot this or that). > > What he did became clear, even to me, after he showed the information > we requested. It did? It's not clear to me. I still haven't seen an explanation of how he ended up with a ton of modified files that he didn't touch, or how he's going to get past that safely. Nobody has mentioned him doing a diff against a public reference commit that *should* be where he started, in order to confirm that when he pushes he can succeed (preferably without making the DAG too ugly, as well). > > "Complain to the writers of the Git glossary, then. I just read what > > they say there." > > They stated a fact. They didn't tell when to use that shorthand. You're missing the point. *They used it themselves, and to interpret what they wrote correctly, you need to admit that.* > > I wish you would write more posts like that. > > Thanks, I'm trying. You're welcome. I hope you know there was absolutely zero sarcasm in the compliment. There is no question in my mind that you have been the most level-headed contributor to this thread, although I disagree (even now) with some of the positions you've taken.