Shared publicly  - 
 
Fernando Perez hung out with 2 people. <a class='ot-hashtag' href='https://plus.google.com/s/%23hangoutsonair'>#hangoutsonair</a>Brian Granger and Min RK
IPython dev
Fernando Perez and 2 others participated
1
Miha Pelko's profile photoPhil Elson's profile photoAdrian Heilbut's profile photoFernando Perez's profile photo
18 comments
 
I'm glad of listening to a physics professor talks :)
 
Please don't take my save away :P
 
Integrating git into a general productivity app UI is hard. Most wiki systems implement their own revision control instead of being backed by a real VCS as well. There are users who know about the "Track Changes" feature in MS Word but have no idea of "making a commit", "clean changesets" etc. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/track-changes-while-you-edit-HA001218690.aspx

If you want the git backed revision control to be widely used, how about bundling libgit2 in Windows and Mac installer packages?
 
No Justin, no worries, we won't...  It's just adding functionality.
 
+Scott Tsai, we'll definitely look into options like that in the future...  But it's an added binary dependency we'd rather avoid.
 
No, your hangout chat can not be seen.
 
Thanks everyone who joined, we'll be doing more of this publicly!
 
Really interesting way of addressing some of the more gnarly PRs. Thanks for sharing.
 
Yes, it's really necessary sometimes for things that need truly in-depth, high-bandwidth discussion.  But we still want to do all of this publicly and involving the community as much as possible, so it seemed like a good approach.  And the video is a 'log' of what happened for the future, in case anyone is curious :)
 
Can't the file-based save and checkpoint mechanism just be kept completely independent of git?  Have a single checkpoint (to avoid the temptation to re-implement git).  Checkpoint implies doing a save first, but doing a save should NOT update the checkpoint.  (The whole point of checkpoint is that you might want to revert back to it.)

Git commit is a separate operation.  Everyone still understands how the filesystem works -- even autosave corresponds to a mental model of saving to the filesystem.  Users need to understand what they're doing with git, and it's different, and it shouldn't mess with the basic filesystem based model.
 
Save should force an auto-save, and nothing else.  Checkpoint saves, and makes the copy for a checkpoint.   If you make the only way to save to do a save and checkpoint, and there is only a single checkpoint allowed, then that defeats the purpose of having a checkpoint at all.  (if you did keep multiple checkpoints that you can revert to from a list, then that behaviour would be OK)

Commit eventually does a git commit of the currently saved version of the file.
 
thanks, sorry for commenting here... :-) I was getting a little excited while listening to the video
 
no, no problem!  Glad to see that it's useful to put these out, I just wanted to direct you where the rest of the discussion is taking place.
Add a comment...