3 ms·
> In fact, if there are ways to visually simplify git and make it more intuitive for non-programmers, those techniques could wind up making git even better for
by guynamedloren 13y ago
> In fact, if there are ways to visually simplify git and make it more intuitive for non-programmers, those techniques could wind up making git even better for programmers too.
That's the goal. I want git to handle everything behind the scenes, and everything that the user touches just 'makes sense' - ie its not all that different from what they're already doing. A 'save' button makes a git commit, editing somebody else's content automatically creates a new branch, 'submitting' that content on the new branch creates a pull request .. etc.
- dylangs1030 13y agoYou could combine the advantages of git versioning with wiki style collaboration and make a git-wiki like the parent said, but for writers. Wikipedia is largely prose, but of a nonfiction variety. This would be a good intersection for git, which was born out of code. You could call it..."geeky"...too bad it wouldn't be for geeks.
- terrycb 13y agoThis is a really fantastic idea. I can also imagine writers will get a great deal of use out of git cherry pick.