Re: base

[Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>]

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