From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Subject: Re: do people use the 'git' command?
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:58:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7v7jh1xli5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
References: <E1DgodI-0003ov-Fl@highlab.com>
	<7vy89h4m9r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
	<E1DgyW0-0004PE-Ct@highlab.com>
	<2cfc403205061023346c03a25b@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r7f9xsux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 11 11:54:58 2005
Return-path: <git-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Dh2ha-0001r9-1A
	for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:54:54 +0200
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261671AbVFKJ7D (ORCPT <rfc822;gcvg-git@m.gmane.org>);
	Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:59:03 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261674AbVFKJ7D
	(ORCPT <rfc822;git-outgoing>); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:59:03 -0400
Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:53488 "EHLO
	fed1rmmtao12.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S261671AbVFKJ7A (ORCPT <rfc822;git@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:59:00 -0400
Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.60.172])
          by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050611095859.MKFF550.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>;
          Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:58:59 -0400
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <87r7f9xsux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message
 of "Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:20:06 -0700")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org

>>>>> "RA" == Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

RA> ... it turns out in discussion on the Debian mailing lists
RA> that people actually do use GIT.

I thought the Debian way to resolve this kind of naming conflict
was to rename _both_ commands involved.  Sorry if this was a
misconception, but I think I read that somewhere in the
developer's guide.