[OT] Re: CTFE Status

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 11/08/2016 02:11 PM, Antonio Corbi wrote:
 >
 > Maybe this one is useful for you:
 >
 > http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/
On 11/08/2016 03:01 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Nothing immediately comes to mind, but thanks to Dr. Google, I found
> this page that's sorta helpful:
>
> 	http://ericsink.com/vcbe/html/directed_acyclic_graphs.html
>
> And perhaps these:
>
> 	http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/
> 	http://marklodato.github.io/visual-git-guide/index-en.html
>

Ok, so it looks like each node in the DAG is a commit. I'll definitely 
have to read further. Thanks, both.

Although I have my doubts it would explain all the issues I've hit upon 
with git's CLI. For example: I don't see why annotated tags aren't the 
default. Or why non-annotated ones even exist at all. When I made 
<https://github.com/Abscissa/gen-package-version>, I noticed that it'll 
*only* work if the version tags are "annotated" tags. Because otherwise 
"git describe" doesn't retrieve the tag. Doesn't even matter one bit 
*what* the tag's message is, just that it exists. Why? Who knows! It's git!

So it means that unlike hg users, who can just make their tags with "hg 
tag v1.2.0" and everything's fine, git users can't just say "git tag 
v1.2.0". In git, making a tag like that will work for SOME use-cases but 
not all. Instead, git users have to use the less-obvious "git tag -a 
v1.2.0 -m '...whatever...'" incantation or else "git describe" won't 
freaking work right, therefore gen-package-version won't be able to 
determine the working copy's current tag name.

So then why do the non-annotated tags even exist? Why not just have 
"annotated" tags with *optional* messages? Why even have the "-a" flag 
for "git tag" at all? Why not have "git tag tagname" make a tag with no 
message, and "git tag tagname -m '...'" to make a tag with a message, 
and ditch the whole "-a" nonsense? Because it wouldn't be stupid enough 
that way? I don't get it.

Its things like that. I'd be surprised if that has much to do with git's 
nature as a "dumb" DAG tool. It's just the general good-design principle 
of "The thing you *want to* or *should* do or *expect* 99% of the time 
should be the DEFAULT, not the obscure incantation".


> Or maybe I should write my own article about git being based on a DAG.
> :-P
>

You should! :)

I've given a lot of thought over the years to the concepts of learning 
and teaching. As I see it, the big key to both is taking seemingly 
complex things, finding a model that makes them simple, and then finding 
a way to communicate that model in a way that preserves its inherent 
simplicity.

The big key there is actually having a simple, well-understood mental 
model, and it sounds like you have that on this, so I'd love to read 
anything you'd have to write about it.