Dan Pascu wrote:
That is a matter of opinion. In mine, the term patch reordering doesn't belong to the first page as it requires more than the 5 minute attention span of a new user trying to figure out if what he is seeing is worth more of his time.
I tested the page on my fiancee who is not at all familiar with Darcs and who is not a native speaker of English. Her positive response took significantly less than 5 minutes. Second, although everyone is entitled to his opinion, not all opinions are equal. We tend to give more weight to opinions of experts or at least experienced people. And in the specific case of volunteer projects, it is common for contributors to carry a little more weight.
I think you misinterpreted my post. It was not about _you_ or the work you're doing.
It was a reply to my patch. How could I not interpret it as being about my work?
You can dismiss it all you want,
I didn't dismiss. I considered your points, largely agreed with your main goals, and said that my subsequent work, which you had not yet seen, would largely cover the concerns you raised. That is not a dismissal and it was not intended as such.
but I know for certain that if 5 years ago David would have used marketoidy language on the front page and references to "smart patches", "patch flipping" and how "Darcs thinks the way you think" (sic), I would have ran away in 5 seconds.
You'll be glad then that none of those terms are present in my latest submission for the front page.
Interestingly enough, what made me interested was something that nowadays many people consider it doesn't belong there: "based on a theory of patches". Contrary to what people believe that using the word theory in there will make users believe that it's hard and you have to learn a theory before you can use it, such a thing never crossed my mind.
On the other hand, it did cross mine. I never realized that the theory of patches was so simple until I learnt about it last weekend (a big thanks to the dudes at #darcs-theory for their help and patience). I always thought that it would be impenetrable, and the reference to Quantum Mechanics seemed a bit absurd and did not inspire confidence for me (btw, my degree is in math and physics).
I hope this kind of cheesy marketoid language doesn't make it on the front page. Darcs is a tool, not a brain. I guess you want to convery the fact that it doesn't stand in your way, but that is just the wrong way to put it.
No, actually, I do mean that Darcs's model of the tree matches the human model better. Darcs thinks in terms of patches rather than snapshots in history, and that is closer to how the human thinks. I also think that you are nitpicking a lot on the word "think". It is perfectly natural to say "Darcs thinks in terms of patches" even though a software program is not sentient.
Daniel. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
