From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:33:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20070417104520.GB4946@moonlight.home> <8b65902a0704170841q64fe0828mdefe78963394a616@mail.gmail.com> <200704171818.28256.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20070417173007.GV2229@spearce.org> <462521C7.2050103@softax.com.pl> <1176984945.30690.30.camel@cauchy.softax.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linus Torvalds , Marcin Kasperski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Marcin Kasperski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 19 14:33:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HeVpR-0001Xk-9k for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:33:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031224AbXDSMde (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:33:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031231AbXDSMde (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:33:34 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:60892 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1031224AbXDSMdd (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:33:33 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2007 12:33:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:33:32 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+2ya0SK7u21fWmD0vMNUj6dbCU4ALbn9xgJsxLKu BDqRudV9yVlpZv X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <1176984945.30690.30.camel@cauchy.softax.local> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Marcin Kasperski wrote: [BTW: who said the following? You skipped that information.] > > So I don't think it's even true that new people should be pointed at cg > > any more. > > Google points to git.or.cz ;-) How does Google point to something? You mean the last time you ran the search, the top find _for you_ was git.or.cz? > > But compare setting up a git repository with setting up a CVS > > repository. With git, it's literally "git init", and you're done. No > > need to worry about CVSROOT issues etc. Everything is self-contained. > > CVS is *hard* to get into, by comparison. > > I am in no way advocating CVS, but to be fair in such comparison, one > should mention also effort of *publishing* git repository and making it > available to remote clients. Initialized and configured CVS (or > subversion, or perforce, or ...) repo is something ready to be used by > remote clients. No. Not at all. It took me _one day_ to publish my first CVS repository. It took me exactly 10 seconds to do that with Git. If you are referring to readily-usable CVS services like sourceforge's, you are comparing apples with sentences. > Getting correct ssh keys in correct places is - for instance - > noticeable problem for many people. Especially if they use clients > (like plink) which natively use alternative key save format. Etc... I fail to see how you need ssh keys in order to publish a Git repository. > I agree that git introduces plenty of excellent concepts. What it needs > is better docs (also, clearly known **SINGLE** master doc, just sth like > subversion book), Does that mean you are volunteering? > cleaned command line interface (I feel that there are > just too many lowlevel commands visible for beginning user, maybe at > least one could split them into git-* for mere mortals and gitadm-* for > repository hackers), Does that mean we can expect patches from you? > portability, Which platform are you having in mind? > and finally GUI. Does that mean you will provide patches? A good starting point is git-gui, IMHO. Ciao, Dscho