> > I don't follow the argument. In your case, you deleted a node. How could > you then Leo to recover that node using node history?
The parent node's history would contain the deleted node. The concept of node level version control is the marrying of an outlining editor with version control at the node/edit level. When combined you get a rich history and a robust "undo" mechanism. In this edge case it is robust "undo" I was after. I will emphasize one thing you stated: > There is no doubt that deep learning is going to transform the world. > But if the intentions and notes for a project already exist, there is no > need to recreate them. > You've exposed the illusion that begs for the archaeological approach to be investigated. However perfect a programmer thinks they are they are still human and will still unknowingly misrepresent their intentions and their work. And they will do this with a frequency that negatively impacts their work and their relationships. As humans this is what we do, we're experts at it. If we didn't the world would be more orderly and less contentious place, but also likely less gratifying. The archaeological approach is intended to help the code author better understand his own work and more effectively represent their work to the world. It is also intended to help the code readership more easily digest of others. It's an interesting question. Sure, there may be *something* to be learned > from looking a gazillion small steps. But life is way too short for such > an approach. This is only true if you think we would need something as involved as "deep learning" to gain insight from what is a pretty straight forward data. In my professional life I am an "image scientist", which is roughly one part data scientist, one part software engineer, one part image analyst. There are always rumblings of "deep learning" and "machine learning" but in reality the required insight into most datasets can be extracted using simple statistics (mean, median, standard devitation). Complex problems can benefit from "deep learning" but trust me in saying, "we're not there yet". Devs should study both the git issue and the official docs closely. It > would be a huge waste of time to study the git commits or (oh horror!) the > git diffs. Sir, I am not insane. I, being human, must have misrepresented my intentions. I agree that it would be a huge waste of time to manually study git commits and git diffs. However, the archaeological approach would likely involve an algorithm gathering statistics from commits and diffs. My closing argument here is that I think you're overestimating the skill of the programmer and you're underestimating the value of what you call "garbage". I'd warn against both of those outlooks, they will only serve to blind you from a truth potentially hiding right under your feet. A truth that could have the power to transform the way you work. That said, I'm truly not trying to affect your focus, I think your current priorities are good. On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:55 PM, john lunzer <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Well, if I'm being honest this is all theoretical in my mind. I've been >> looking into Fossil more and just the name triggers ideas. Fossil was >> chosen as a name due to the fact that all artifacts in Fossil are immutable >> and could be thought of as fossils. The imagery of archaeology is what I >> find powerful. >> >> An automatic and "fossilized" undo system can be useful, here is an >> anecdote. I was recently working on some code that was not version >> controlled (I know, I was asking for it) and I accidentally deleted a node >> containing a class implementation that I didn't realize was gone until >> hours worth of coding later, >> > > As you imply, the solution is to use git, or any other sccs. I think > that's the end of the story. > > > >> So, if version control is so important and outlining is so powerful, then >> why wouldn't version control at the node l >> >> evel be powerfully important? >> > > I don't follow the argument. In your case, you deleted a node. How > could you then Leo to recover that node using node history? > > I am skeptical about such grand claims. The real "action" consists of >>> ideas. They get translated into a gazillion small steps. It's almost >>> certainly impossible to go backwards from code to concept. My present >>> opinion, lightly held, is that if you can't deduce what is happening from >>> the checkin logs, you have no chance of doing so from the actual code. >> >> ... > >> People like you, Edward, are about as active a committer as I have met, >> most projects on github come nowhere near to your level of individual >> activity. You're doing it the "right" way but I don't think we can expect >> everyone to do it the right way. And even for you, we've still missed a >> gazillion of your small steps. Archeologically speaking are we to believe >> that we have nothing to learn from those small steps. My theory is that >> there *has* to be something there. >> > > It's an interesting question. Sure, there may be *something* to be > learned from looking a gazillion small steps. But life is way too short > for such an approach. > > Let's consider a real-world example, #334 > <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/334>: simplify (rewrite) > Leo's importers. This issue is part of my distributed engineering > notebook. When I was finished, I created official documentation > <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/blob/master/leo/doc/importers.md>. > > > Devs should study both the git issue and the official docs closely. It > would be a huge waste of time to study the git commits or (oh horror!) the > git diffs. > > Really, I think you should abandon the archeological approach. Why go > through Henry Kissinger's garbage? You don't even need to file a Freedom > of Information request to get the full scoop :-) > > Here is a basic idea, and one that comes from data science and statistics. >> When you've got a gazillion of something usually the only way to digest it >> is with statistical data. Numbers and figures which help describe the >> nature and shape of that big blob on gazillion somethings. >> > > There is no doubt that deep learning is going to transform the world. > But if the intentions and notes for a project already exist, there is no > need to recreate them. > > Edward > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
