> I log in, and I create a resource a new by bringing in a bit of this
> and a bit of that. There aren't any git actions involved per say
> there, but you could imagine a checkbox marked "keep this content up
> to date", and then when the version is updated, your content is
> updated too (I guess like OLE in the old days). So this is a sort of
> auto-git.
Now that sounds like a really old technology/idea - Xanadu!
> Now you might take a full piece, and just tweak some bits to make it
> more you (teacher voice etc.) now the act of sending a copy back to
> the creator (git pull request) becomes interesting because it has peer
> review / actual benefits for you.
And I think you nicely captured the "humanist" angle - content may be king, but hopefully is not a tyrant.
This is maybe the problem with the current Git model, i.e. that alternative formulations are only stored as "branches" (in the repository), rather than being integrated, at any given moment, into the user experience. But more tightly coupling the UI with the repo would potentially take care of that.
--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
|