4 ms·
That's very snoby-sounding tbh. Why would the average humanities person be better equipped to understand an algebra about source code management? What a weird
by RamblingCTO 3y ago
That's very snoby-sounding tbh.
Why would the average humanities person be better equipped to understand an algebra about source code management? What a weird take. It's not about managing a library of any kind, it's about a tree of changes. And it's not (only) about publishing either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cxr 3y agoIs there a reason why between what I originally wrote and what you wrote here, you changed enough of the words that it no longer matches what I actually said? > It's not about managing a library of any kind, it's about a tree of changes. No, a Git repo is not "a tree of changes" (nor is Git a "hacky diffing tool").
- RamblingCTO 3y agoJust because you frame Git to be a certain way, doesn't mean I agree with it. Define Git for me then please. Obviously we're using very different tools. Git itself, for me, manages diffs (or rather refs of diffs) as a tree. Branches are pointers. That's it. /e: and why on earth is it an algebra about publishing? As I said before, imho it's not about publishing, but about tracking. Publishing is just an aspect.
- cxr 3y ago> Define Git for me I'll pass. > Git [...] manages diffs (or rather refs of diffs) Wrong. > why on earth is it an algebra about publishing? It's not. I said operations on a repo comprise an algebra of publishing. As for why? Because that's what we're talking about: the stupid content tracker. This is not disputable. > As I said before, imho it's [...] about tracking You didn't say that. And you were less than humble about what you did say.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoThank you for showing me that any time spent on talking to you is wasted. You clearly demonstrate that you have no interest in a discussion.
- cxr 3y agoAgain, not true. But discussion with you? About this? Here? Bang on—I can't see any upsides.