Re: Is this an appropriate list for general git questions

[Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Scott Haneda <talklists@newgeo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> By the way, this mailing list accepts posts from non-subscribers, and
>> it's the policy on the list to always cc: everyone who has replied to
>> a message in that thread so far, including the original poster.  The
>> idea is that you can ask a question about git without *having* to
>> subscribe to read all the other stuff.  But of course, reading some of
>> the other stuff will make you a more competent git user pretty fast,
>> so it might be worth it anyway.
>
> Interesting, I have never once in 15+ years of mailing lists, seen a list work this
> way.  Pretty nice to not have to subscribe.  Amazing that there is not spam all over this list.

I'm guessing they just use a good spam scanner.

>> You should probably look at getting a good book on version control.
>> You can find *these* using Google, including free online ones, now
>> that you know this is what you should do :)
>
> Ok, I will look into it.  I am really hoping there is a "4 command to using
> git" type of thing.  I think I even heard that Joel Spolsky guy state
> something along those lines; that he has gotten by with version control
> on 4 commands.  I can not remember if it was git he was referring to though.

No, it was mercurial.  As I recall, he then went on to decide that
trying to use it with only four commands wasn't the right approach and
you should actually learn about it, and wrote a series of tutorials.

It's generally agreed (though perhaps not among everyone on this list
:)) that mercurial is easier to learn at first than git.  However, in
my experience, once you've spent the time to learn how git works, you
also gain a lot more than with any other system.  It's ridiculously
powerful, in the same way that Unix is powerful.

Then again, if you're running on a Mac, there are some GUI-based git
tools available.  I've heard good things about GitX, though I haven't
tried it myself.

>> source code almost never *needs*
>> these resource forks: only finished products do, and those are usually
>> built *from* the source code.  As part of the build process, you add
>> the resource forks and xattrs onto the completed files.
>
> Yes, very true, except in the case of AppleScripts and Automator actions.
> Which can be "compiled" and finished apps, but also can be raw source files.
> However, I believe that even those, being that they run in their own development
> environment, have resources and other attributes that have to be maintained.

As I understand it, almost everything in OS X avoids requiring
resource forks nowadays.  You'll probably be okay.

Have fun,

Avery