From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-ASN: AS24867 82.211.80.0/20 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Ericsson Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.comp.version-control.git Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:49:46 +0200 Message-ID: <453F6B7A.60805@op5.se> References: <45354AD0.1020107@utoronto.ca> <453DAC87.8050203@research.canon.com.au> <20061025084810.GA26618@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20061025094900.GA26989@coredump.intra.peff.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161784219 25230 80.91.229.2 (25 Oct 2006 13:50:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, David Rientjes Original-X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Wed Oct 25 15:50:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org Received: from esperanza.ubuntu.com ([82.211.81.173]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gcj8z-0003Ti-Uq for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:50:10 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gcj8y-0005bL-RV; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:50:08 +0100 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2] helo=smtp-gw1.op5.se) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gcj8g-0005ZY-UA for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:49:54 +0100 Received: by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix, from userid 588) id A1C796BCF0; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:49:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1596BCE4; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:49:47 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) To: Jeff King In-Reply-To: <20061025094900.GA26989@coredump.intra.peff.net> X-BeenThere: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: bazaar-ng discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Errors-To: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:18768 gmane.comp.version-control.git:30058 Archived-At: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:19:15AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > >> No, my criticism is against the added complexity which makes the >> modification of git increasingly difficult with every new release. It's a > > OK, you seemed to imply problems for end users in your first paragraph, > which is what I was responding to. > >> _current_ needs. For any experienced shell programmer it is so much >> easier to go in and change an option or pipe to a different command or >> comment out a simple shell command in a .sh file than editing the C code. > > Yes, it's true that some operations might be easier to play with in the > shell. However, does it actually come up that you want to modify > existing git programs? The more common usage seems to be gluing the > plumbing together in interesting ways, and that is still very much > supported. > Indeed. I still use my old git-send-patch script whenever I want to send patches, simply because I don't like git-send-email and its defaults much. The interface hasn't changed one bit since I wrote it. That's pretty stable, since send-patch was created couple of hours before git.c was submitted to the list, as I wrote the "send-patch" script to send the patch that did the rewriting. I'm personally all for a rewrite of the necessary commands in C ("commit" comes to mind), but as many others, I have no personal interest in doing the actual work. I'm fairly certain that once we get it working natively on windows with some decent performance, windows hackers will pick up the ball and write "wingit", which will be a log viewer and GUI thing for fetching/merging/committing/reverting/rebasing/sending patches and whatnot. Possibly it will have hooks to Visual C++ or some other IDE. I don't know how that sort of thing works, but I'm sure someone clever and bored enough will want to investigate the possibilities.