Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I'm a bit worried about this idea. We may very well talk about
>> educating the public; but first, we must know what we're talking
>> about. I won't go so far as to say that this model is
>> counter-intuitive, but it's definitely a lot different from what I,
>> and probably most of us, are used to. So:
>> - How certain can we be that exposing the implementation of tags and
>> branches like this will really be easy for users to understand?
>> It's taken me long enough to grok what JimB was getting at, for one
>> thing. :-)
> Our comrades at Collabnet understood us when we said "we make cheap
> copies. You work in the copy, then merge the copy into another
> directory. This is equivalent to a branch. If you don't touch the
> copy at all, it's equivalent to a tag." There were no questions or
> confusions about this.
> Similarly, when Karl explained this in front of 150 linux users at the
> SVLUG presentation, again, there were no questions or screams of
> shock. People seemed to understand.
This is very good news, and sets my mind to rest for now. Thanks.
(And I'll still be able to say "I told you so!" when we have thousands
of users punding on the door, asking where their branches have gone to.
Ha ha. :-) )
home: <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
work: <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si> http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
ACM: <brane_at_acm.org> http://www.acm.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:29 2006