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=AWL,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: Carl Worth Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:56:45 -0800 Message-ID: <87d57pu4qa.wl%cworth@cworth.org> References: <87k61yt1x2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <455A1137.8030301@shadowen.org> <87hcx1u934.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <20061114194707.GH7201@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Nov_14_12:56:38_2006-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20061114194707.GH7201@pasky.or.cz> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.4 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gk5LF-0004j0-1W for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:57:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965652AbWKNU5J (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:57:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965737AbWKNU5J (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:57:09 -0500 Received: from theworths.org ([217.160.253.102]:49638 "EHLO theworths.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965652AbWKNU5H (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:57:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 6196 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2006 15:57:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (HELO raht.cworth.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Nov 2006 15:57:02 -0500 To: Petr Baudis Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org --pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Nov_14_12:56:38_2006-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:47:07 +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > Hmm, did they (not) consider Cogito? They wouldn't have those issues. I didn't ask. Frankly, I don't see a lot of value in the git/cogito split right now. When I first learned git and cogito (January 2006) and switched cairo from cvs to git (the repository storage), I recommended cogito to cairo programmers as a "more cvs-like" way to work with the new repository. Since then, having worked with git (the command-line program) exclusively for my own work, and having introduced it to dozens of new users, I don't bother recommending cogito anymore. It's just not that hard to learn git itself, so there's not that much value in learning cogito instead. And this is particularly true since there's quite a large cost to having to learn cogito _in addition to_ git. And I think that's what most people would have to do anyway. For example, cogito doesn't wrap all git commands. So users have to dip down into git for things like git-bisect or else miss out an important functionality. And for something like the Fedora transition, where I'm working with the people who will be training the community in the new tools, the trainers would have to learn both if they want to support a community using both git and cogito. These trainers are already complaining about the ~140 git commands, so adding 40 more cogito commands as well doesn't make the story better. It's great that git is written in a script-friendly way so that new interfaces can be built on top of it. And I think the benefits of new user interfaces are clear when they work in fundamentally different ways, (say, being operated through a GUI). But where git and cogito are both command-line utilities and have the same basic functionality, I don't see how its helpful to maintain both tools. (Certainly some of my attitude here is due to the timing of my introduction to git contrasted with the timing of the inception of cogito. I'm sure git improved a lot between those two events.) There are some things that cogito does that git does not that I would like to have in git. One is having a "commit" command that commits everything by default without an extra command-line option. Another (that I _think_ cogito has) is a way to switch away from a branch with dirty changes to a clean branch, do work there, and come back to the original branch with the dirty stuff still there. I don't see any defining difference that justifies cogito's existence ("hide the index" maybe? let's just hide it a tiny bit more in git). And I would like to help work to get the remaining good stuff that has been proven in cogito---to get it pushed down into git itself. -Carl --pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Nov_14_12:56:38_2006-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFWi2N6JDdNq8qSWgRAia8AJ9b7rLA6wOfat7/OCguOyNRhpi+nACeIE3j jYXp17k0tw5LnV6eFRJeocY= =mRNe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----