|
|
|
|
|
|
by zallarak
4134 days ago
|
|
|
The conceptual model matches the implementation - this is what Don Norman's "Design of Everyday Things" says is good design. When this is the case, a user can interact with the object's interface using logic and intuition and get predictable results. I agree, git really embodies this. |
|
|
I depends where on the conceptual stack you think you lie. I use fossil[1] because I don't have detached heads, need to understand the backing-store to reason about "where am I?" and have "porcelain" that seems to leave every single operational aspect laid out for me, instead of abstracting it away. When I work w/ version control, I work with files, and putting them away. Detached heads shouldn't be my concern, nor the conflicting ways describing how to sync[2], etc., etc., etc.
[1] http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15316601/in-what-cases-co...
EDIT: spell 'porcelain' correctly.