From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: EasyGit Integration Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git list To: Scott Chacon X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 09 21:44:09 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ME7Et-0000z5-JS for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:44:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752390AbZFITn7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:43:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752303AbZFITn6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:43:58 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:35130 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749AbZFITn6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:43:58 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.131.194.97]) by VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KKZ00LEULGKAS00@VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:43:34 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Scott Chacon wrote: > Hey all, > > I have been playing with the EasyGit project lately and I have been > really impressed. I looked back to the last announcement here and the > conversation didn't really go anywhere, sadly. I thought it might be > nice to adopt or at least consider a number of the design decisions > they made in modifying the defaults and commands available. Perhaps > as a 1.7 goal or something? I like it because it addresses a lot of > the issues that I hear from beginning users: [...] > Does this resonate with anyone else? Does 1.7 seem like a good goal > for amending some of these things? Completely redefining 'revert' > seems like the only backward incompatible change - everything else is > just wrappers and whatnot, I think. Completely agreed. This is indeed refreshing to see some of the git UI warts being addressed by people who simply aren't too used to them like I am. And like you said, most of those changes don't create any incompatibilities and therefore could be fed back _piecemeal_ into the main git repository today without even requiring a major version bump. Nicolas