On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > > Last night I played further with the first ever commit. I managed to > figure out the sequence in which commands had to be run. Kudos to the > people that decided the make the commands easier in the later versions. > :-) Well, in all fairness, even _I_ didn't enjoy using it at that stage. It was all very hacky, with the manual "write-tree" + "commit-tree" stuff. But it's interesting to look at the timing: - Start early April - First git commit April 7 - first kernel commit April 16 - first merge: April 17 (14:47) The time of that first merge is interesting, because it's worth correlating the git tree with the early kernel tree there. What preceded that first merge? Yup: the git 'merge-base' program was written a couple of hours before. But the really interesting thing (to me) is that while I had tools/scripts to apply patches and to do relatively fancy tthings like merges etc basically just a couple of weeks after starting, it's telling just how long it took for something as simple as "git commit" to happen: May 30. Never mind that it was actually just a totally trivial shell script, literally just a few lines. So it wasn't about the technology, it's very much a sign of what mattered to me. I mean, I had a tool to create merges with conflicts back in mid-april! But something as simple as just committing the existing tree? No tools, you had to do that whole git-update-index .. commit=$(git-commit-tree $(git-write-tree) -p HEAD) .. type in message .. echo $commit > .git/HEAD song-and-dance by hand. Or use cogito, which explains the success of early wrappers - other people had rather different priorities than I did. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html