From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Langhoff Subject: Re: [RFC] Do we still need the git command? Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:38:31 +1200 Message-ID: <46a038f905092304384d79d715@mail.gmail.com> References: <72499e3b050923042466011c4f@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: Martin Langhoff Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 23 13:41:15 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EIlt4-0001x1-Fw for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:38:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750891AbVIWLid (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:38:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750889AbVIWLid (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:38:33 -0400 Received: from qproxy.gmail.com ([72.14.204.202]:32490 "EHLO qproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750888AbVIWLid convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:38:33 -0400 Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id v40so155194qbe for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:38:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AA8eWSvzxjTctcRY3BXSv0HPnayXUwl4D+tOqF7a4Fu9UA8xPA+86fCHAV+JslDcEC9VgnJXzv0XwfvJEzEvYjKEcJDw9S3ZTbFS00nM518CXOzZBlLD2NtjsSUZivs3jUUsWza/FiqBMxyIK9OhO8TrhHZCzt6SFVnEho51J6A= Received: by 10.64.209.14 with SMTP id h14mr217728qbg; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.232.18 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:38:31 -0700 (PDT) To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: <72499e3b050923042466011c4f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 9/23/05, Robert Watson wrote: > (2) Different style from CVS/SVN. That is a plus in my book -- CVS implemented an awful UI, and everyone else followed. CVS did make use if it in that it discriminated options to the cvs utility from command options. > Pros: > (4) Do not conflict with GNU Interactive Tools. Make the life of > Debian people easier. +1! Anything to avoid yet another flamewar in debian-devel ;-) and it also shows some good manners towards a (mostly forgotten) but good project. The whole name conflict prompted me to install the GNU Interactive Tools and run it for a couple of days. Nifty little "midnight-commander" style utility. cheers, martin