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: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: svn versus git Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:07:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4581CB38.8050401@op5.se> References: <200612132200.41420.andyparkins@gmail.com> <200612142000.54409.arekm@maven.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) In-Reply-To: <200612142000.54409.arekm@maven.pl> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GuykZ-00087Q-Ee for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:08:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751796AbWLNWIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:08:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751779AbWLNWIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:08:20 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:41452 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751796AbWLNWIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:08:20 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.20] (1-2-9-7a.gkp.gbg.bostream.se [82.182.116.44]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8762F6BCC4; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:08:18 +0100 (CET) To: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > On Wednesday 13 December 2006 23:00, Andy Parkins wrote: >> Hello, >> >> With all the discussion about user interface difficulties, I started to >> write a comparison with subversion document. (I was assuming that people >> find subversion easy). As much as I love git, I was expecting to find that >> it's hard to use interface would have subversion as the clear winner. I >> was hoping that would then give guidance as to what could be fixed in git. >> >> I was surprised, therefore, to find that in each case I was finding that >> git was the winner. > > subversion is a winner when it comes to options handling (especially --help) > and better (error) messages. That's one of reason why people find it easy. > Yup. Most discussions about what git can do to improve usually ends up in a patch that fixes either documentation or error- / help-messages. > ps. I'm blind or there is no documentation about what utilities are needed to > get git fully working? (like sed, coreutils, grep, rcs package (merge tool > afaik needed)...). > perl and the standard coreutils, which afaik are required to be present on all unix systems. We no longer require external merge tools. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se