Re: Stash

["João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:59:10 +0100
>> Cc: Mathias Megyei <mathias@mnet-mail.de>, sb@dod.no, emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> Is there a reason why you don't mention 'gitk' in GitQuickStartForEmacsDevs?
>> > I don't want to assume gitk is installed, nor that the Git commands
>> > are invoked from a sufficiently capable terminal.
>>
>> Fair enough, but perhaps what Mathias meant is that there should be mention
>> of the commit graph in those pages, and how somehow visualizing it could
>> clear so many doubts.
>>
>> There is no mention of "graph" in both Git*ForEmacsDevs pages
>> and I don't think it's an implementation detail. So at least some ASCII art.
>
> Thanks.
>
> The DAG is not mentioned there because I'm not sure what purpose that
> would serve in the context of the instructions there.
>
> In general, people who use vc-dir are already familiar with the
> revision graph, because it's not something invented by Git.

But Git forces you to understand it intimately.

Even when pushing/pulling linearly to a single branch, which is a
situation where many devs may think they don't have to care about it.
So it's not enough to mention "branches" and "merges" which many
devs might think is someone's elses jurisdiction.

This exposed complexity is fortunate/unfortunate depending on the
point of view. VC may try to hide it: I've seen many attempts to do so
but  never done well, so good luck :-)

-- 
João Távora