[Sr_developer]

For me almost every Git teaching resource has gone like this:

Step 1.It is explained that Git is a simple program, and that the underlined idea can be understood easily, it is only that other materials have done a bad job about it.

Step 2. Tell the reader a blob is just the byte object containing the information you are source-controlling. "See how easy it is?"

Step 3. Invent their own nomenclature/diagrams/metaphors for all the other concepts, totally muddling the waters.

Step 4. Become one of the resources criticized on Step 1.

[darekkay]

One day I'd like to break this circle. I've been doing 2-day Git workshops with a colleague for a few years now, and "to internals or not to internals" is our constant disagreement. I don't like talking about blobs, trees and anything below the "commit hash" level because I almost never need it myself.

My other personal issue is the complete opposite of the "going way too deep into details" teaching resources: showing clone/commit/push/pull and calling it a day. This leads to resources like ohshitgit.com as things will eventually break when people use commands without understanding what is happening.

When doing our workshops, we go through the basics: what is a commit, what is a branch, what is HEAD, what do commands like checkout/reset/rebase do on graph level. This approach demistifies Git without going into internals. It also takes away the fear of "advanced" topics (like "rewriting" history)

[relaxing]

Do you have slides or other resources from your workshops you’d be willing to share?

[darekkay]

Unfortunately, those resources are company-internal. But I'm planning to create a public resource based on my experience of doing those workshops, without falling into the trap mentioned by GP.

[maxnoe]

I also take this middle ground, seems to work well for most students

[andi999]

Our IT department refuses to give an introduction to git. Smart guys.