Re: svn versus git

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:37PM +0000, Andy Parkins wrote:
> svn add::
> Put files and directories under version control, scheduling them for
> addition to repository.  They will be added in next commit.  This
> doesn't really add anything, it just schedules.
> git add::
> Add files to the index file.  This command does not simply schedule.  It
> takes the current contents of the file and copies it to the git staging
> area.
> 
> The git index makes this command more complicated for git; however git
> is using the verb "add" more correctly.  In the subversion case, nothing
> is actually added to a repository, it is merely scheduled for addition.

Well, you could argue whether adding something to the index is really
adding it to "a repository".

> svn cat::
> Output the contents of specified files or URLs.  Optionally at a
> specific revision.
> git cat-file -p $(git-ls-tree $REV $file | cut -d " " -f 3 | cut -f 1)::
> git-ls-tree lists the object ID for $file in revision $REV, this is cut
> out of the output and used as an argument to git-cat-file, which should
> really be called git-cat-object, and simply dumps that object to stdout.
> 
> Subversion wins.  This is a distinctly non-user friendly way of reading
> a file.

Still, unfriendly, but not quite as bad:

	git -p cat-file -p revision:path

> svn diff::
> Display the differences between two paths.  Defaults to showing the
> differences between HEAD and the working copy.
> git diff::
> As for svn;

though note slightly different default.  (Diffs against index, not
HEAD).