Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

[Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1825 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:23:38 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> It is true that non default ones are second class status.
> That's why they are not "default" ;-).

Sure, but different users have different needs. I use the default
branch for where I want developers to base most new commits, (a
"development" branch), but for some of these "anonymous tracking only"
users, a "stable" branch can be the only branch of interest. So I'd
really like to be able to publish branches on more equal footing.

> The autosetup configuration needs to be done once for the user
> (not tied to any project), so you are talking about difference
> between:

Well, it's not so simple to write off the autosetup configuration
step. Even if it only has to happen once, I still need to teach users
how to do it.

And that's an extra step compared to any other SCM tool one might be
interested in comparing git too, (which is the original topic).

So the current git sequence to get to being able to do just "git pull"
to track a specific branch is:

	# Something to setup autosetup (once per user account)
	git clone <url>
	git checkout -b <branch> origin/<branch>

I know that that's a single command in many other systems, and it
seems a very useful case to target. Is there any argument against
adding a single command that does exactly the above, (with the
modification that the autosetup thing could be done as local instead
of global configuration). And with the recent talk about phasing
cogito out and just merging its functionality into git itself, why not
just use the cogito syntax for this:

	git clone <url>#<branch>

At that point, git would be supporting this use case as well as any
other tool out there, (and git can still support things like tracking
_multiple_ branches in better ways than other tools as it does
already).

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]