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: David Rientjes Newsgroups: gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general,gmane.comp.version-control.git Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45349162.90001@op5.se> <453536AE.6060601@utoronto.ca> <200610172301.27101.jnareb@gmail.com> <45354AD0.1020107@utoronto.ca> <453DAC87.8050203@research.canon.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161720824 8686 80.91.229.2 (24 Oct 2006 20:13:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org Original-X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Tue Oct 24 22:13:38 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 1GcSe7-0005Y5-Cv for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:13:11 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GcSe2-0000rB-64; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:13:06 +0100 Received: from mx4.cs.washington.edu ([128.208.4.190]) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GcSdq-0000oX-MD for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:12:55 +0100 Received: from attu4.cs.washington.edu (attu4.cs.washington.edu [128.208.1.140]) by mx4.cs.washington.edu (8.13.7/8.13.7/1.6) with ESMTP id k9OKCr9w023924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:12:53 -0700 (envelope-from rientjes@cs.washington.edu) Received: from localhost (rientjes@localhost) by attu4.cs.washington.edu (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit/1.2) with ESMTP id k9OKCqV1008930; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:12:52 -0700 (envelope-from rientjes@cs.washington.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: attu4.cs.washington.edu: rientjes owned process doing -bs To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: 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:18712 gmane.comp.version-control.git:30010 Archived-At: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes. However, from a portability (to Windows) standpoint, shell is just > about the worst choice. > > Not that perl/python/etc really help - unless the _whole_ program is one > perl/python thing. Windows just doesn't like pipelines etc very much. > > So I'd like all the _common_ programs to be built-ins.. > And I would prefer the opposite because we're talking about git. As an information manager, it should be seen and not heard. Nobody is going to spend their time to become a git or CVS or perforce expert. As an individual primarily interested in development, I should not be required to learn command lines for dozens of different git-specific commands to do my job quickly and effectively. I would opt for a much more simpler approach and deal with shell scripting for many of these commands because I'm familiar with them and I can pipe any command with the options I already know and have used before to any other command. As a developer on Linux based systems, I should not need to deal with code in a revision control system that is longer and less traceable because the authors of that system decided they wanted to support Windows too. Moving away from the functionality that the shell provides is a mistake for a system such as git where it could be so advantageous because of the inherent nature of git as an information manager. This is the reason why I was a fan of git long ago and used it for my own needs before tons of unnecessary features and unneeded complexity was added on. David