[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: base

From: Uday S Reddy
Subject: Re: base
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:25:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

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

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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]