Re: git on Cygwin: Not a valid object name HEAD

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Steffen Prohaska wrote:

> On Aug 10, 2007, at 8:07 AM, Torgil Svensson wrote:
> 
> > On 8/9/07, Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Will all this run on Windows XP 64 bit and Windows Vista 64 bit?
> > 
> > How fast can you type?
> 
> I don't see your point. The question is if git runs flawlessly
> on 64 bit systems, which we use for development. I have no experience
> with mingw. Maybe there are some issues with 64 bit Windows, maybe
> not. But its a reasonable question?

It would be, if

- more people had 64-bit platforms to run on, and
- more people had Windows 64-bit.

Both cost money, so I suggest just trying it for yourself if you are one 
of the few lucky ones being actually _able_ to test.

And no, I will not buy a Windows 64-bit just to test it for you.

> > Why does it have to be the _official_ repo? Git have submodule
> > support, so you could do a repo called
> > "my_excellent_git_environment_for_windows.git" and have the official
> > repo as submodule (msysgit is done this way).
> 
> The official repo would indicate a real commitment to me that
> Windows support if officially maintained.

I cannot speak for others, of course, but this is a freeloader mentality I 
do not want to support.

If you want first class Windows support, you'll have to pay for that, 
methinks.  And seeing all those less-than-even-lousy SCMs getting major 
financial contributions to support their mediocrity, I do not see a reason 
to get small amounts from private people, but rather substantial 
money-flow from big companies.

Git is an excellent tool.  If people want it badly enough, they should do 
something for it.

> I agree that there may be more tools group around core git. But
> core git itself should be the master from the official repo.
> This seems to be a reasonable goal to me. At least that is what
> we do. The head must compile on all supported platforms
> out-of-the-box.

Guess why mingw.git is called a "fork"?  It is _not good enough_ yet to be 
included.  Not necessarily function-wise, but definitely code-wise.  We 
have quite strict coding rules, being an Open Source project where 
everybody can see your mess, should there be one.

It has _never_ been the plan to maintain mingw.git independently for 
eternity.  But the progress has been slow, and the _only_ reason that 
there was any progress _at all_ was that Hannes stepped up, and did some 
actual work instead of talking.

So yes, mingw.git's target destination is git.git.

Ciao,
Dscho