Not *really* on topic here, but maybe we should be teaching learners `git reflog show` [1]. Everyone messes git up sometimes; Checking the reflog is often the best fix when that happens.
On the other hand, the output of `reflog show` is *confusing*. It would certainly be a distraction and no one would fully understand what they're seeing. ...But you teach skydivers how to release the parachute before you teach them how to pack it. -Byron [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-reflog On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Terri Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Dealing with git is a huge pain. When I screw something up in git, I have > to take a deep breath, look things up on StackOverflow, and double check > all my commands, so that I don't break something. The only reason I > learned it was because I had to learn it to contribute to open source > projects. And when I try to help newbies make their first open source > contribution, the biggest roadblock is always git. When I used version > control for my solo research project, I used mercurial. Mercurial is not > just for small projects. Python uses mercurial for their open source > project. Facebook recently started using Mercurial instead of Git [1]. > > Terri > > [1] > https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, David Martin (Staff) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> We spend about 50 contact hours teaching our undergraduates the basics of >> R. Even that is not enough. It has been said that you need 100 hours to >> reach competency, and 1000 hours to master a subject. And the next stage is >> 10,000 hours to be an expert.. >> >> How much time has he invested in actually learning those skills? I was >> totting up the time we spend teaching X versus the amount of complaints we >> get that the students don't know X. There is a strong inverse correlation. >> Folk want a cheap easy fix and have been promised that with computers. It >> does exist but it has to be earned. You don't get cheap and easy for free. >> >> Dr David Martin >> Lecturer in Bioinformatics >> College of Life Sciences >> University of Dundee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Discuss <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Lex Nederbragt <[email protected]> >> Sent: 29 February 2016 20:43 >> To: Software Carpentry Discussion >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] RajLab: From reproducibility to >> over-reproducibility >> >> Hi all and thanks for the many responses. >> >> My feeling reading this post was about tools (partly echoing Greg): 'we' >> know 'all of us' should use the appropriate tool, e.g. version control (is >> that what you call the moral high-ground?). But for the novice, these >> tools/methods have steep learning curves, thus high upfront time >> investment, and no immediate benefit (!!!). There is a burden on 'us' to >> convince 'others' of the need to invest time to adopt these tools. >> >> I am not sure whether more convincing (how? Research-based evidence?) or >> training is the answer, versus much easier to learn and use tools. >> >> Lex >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >> >> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
