This is a great explanation of git for people who have not yet had to work with it: https://speakerdeck.com/alicebartlett/git-for-humans
@rixx This will work great as long as the humans don't try touching the CLI, in which case this explanation will not help very much. :P
@JordiGH Sure it will. People still need to know what a repo is and what commits and branches do. Also, no reason to make people use the CLI, especially less technical folks.
"This introduction is not a tutorial!" is as correct as it is irrelevant. 😉
@rixx On the other hand, this isn't really a git explanation at all, just a snapshot-based DVCS explanation, works equally well for Mercurial and Fossil.
Yes, yes it is. And I'm sure if you put it in these terms people would be super intere… – no, that would be confusing. Putting it in simple terms ("git works like this!") is great for newcomers, especially since they probably have heard of git(hub) already. You can still say "btw, mercurial and fossil work just the same way!" later on. But with your phrasing, you'd have to explain additional terms, which is what this presentation skillfully avoids.
@rixx I just don't like that this presentation is making it harder to teach anything other than git while simultaneously making it difficult to teach git.
I just don't like git.
@rixx My previous workplace with Mercurial was *much* easier. Everyone understood how to use it, we never really needed to go beyond what was in this presentation. No staging area, no "what is a branch?", no blob-tree-commit-ref data structure, no force-pushing, no a bunch of other irrelevant extra inevitable gitisms that are really a scourge on our entire industry.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make \(\pi z^2 \times a\) jokes.
\) for inline LaTeX, and
\] for display mode.