While I do agree on the issue, and on the necessity of finding a better wording, the important point here, is that some interpretations of “keeping changes separated” is achievable without channels:
This paragraph is here to prevent a common “first reaction” I’ve heard before about Pijul: “oh, there’s cool math behind it, so I’ll just use it as if it were Git”, which totally defeats the point: Git is better at being Git than Pijul.
By the way, you’re admin on pijul/manual, feel free to push all the changes you want! (And push changes here too!)
Thanks. For some reason I still need to investigate, I cannot push a change to the nest yet (related to SSH keys, but I think the issue is on my side)
IJDR5YPDBB4JIUUBDPXG6GRT6B5JDJDR6RLCOWWAAAQQVK3YNYVQC
Here we are!
When you say I can push change here to, does that means I still can push changes directly to pijul
without having to use discussions, like I was able to in the previous repository? (not that I will want to do that often, but when it comes to typo or minor fixes like that, it can be good to know)
In the README, you say
I really think this is not true. The fact that changes commute (which is all and well, nobody will say the opposite) does not prevent someone who want to work on two different features at the same time to want to keep their changes separated.
I fear that people which use
git
everyday andgit
’s branch for a lot of different use cases will believe (falsely) thatpijul
’s authors do not understand what git branches are used for, and get a bad first impression for not a good reason.I will try to come up with a rewording, because I think i get what you are trying to say. But I wanted to share my feeling first.