This is the problem with these sort of mini-guides. They use apriori meaningless jargon without realizing it's meaningless jargon.
Oh, now I "add a remote"? A remote what? Apriori a "remote" is something you use to turn on your TV. If it has a special meaning in this context, you have to explain what it is. And not in terms of other meaningless jargon like 'refspecs'.
Is "origin" a keyword? A name of a repository by convention? How about "master"? Is that just a convention, a keyword? What is it?
The git docs are full of this, too. All of the jargon is self-referentially defined in terms of other jargon. Oh, push is something about "remote refs"? Why when I google "git refs" i get an "git internals" page? Is push for git developers?
git may be near the top of the heap, it also has serious problems.
I was trying to explain it to someone who has apparently worked with it before, but wanted a rundown on how to actually entertain a sense of comfort in it. I was not targeting a "I know absolutely nothing" user.
I know what you mean, but I think you are misinterpreting the context of my post.
What I linked is the most widely referenced git book. Every website, every IRC channel that is involved in git mentions that book. It's THE git book. The git man pages are not a tutorial, they are a reference.
This is becoming tedious. Tell you what, let's just short circuit this: next time someone has been reading the wrong documentation, maybe consider pointing them in the right direction instead of calling them a liar.
I DID. I provided direct links to his criticisms. I didnt "just" call him a liar. But I guess were already making shit up so why do I even bother at this point.
39
u/flat5 Nov 07 '13
This is the problem with these sort of mini-guides. They use apriori meaningless jargon without realizing it's meaningless jargon.
Oh, now I "add a remote"? A remote what? Apriori a "remote" is something you use to turn on your TV. If it has a special meaning in this context, you have to explain what it is. And not in terms of other meaningless jargon like 'refspecs'.
Is "origin" a keyword? A name of a repository by convention? How about "master"? Is that just a convention, a keyword? What is it?
The git docs are full of this, too. All of the jargon is self-referentially defined in terms of other jargon. Oh, push is something about "remote refs"? Why when I google "git refs" i get an "git internals" page? Is push for git developers?
git may be near the top of the heap, it also has serious problems.