On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Scott Haneda <talklists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote: >> By the way, this mailing list accepts posts from non-subscribers, and >> it's the policy on the list to always cc: everyone who has replied to >> a message in that thread so far, including the original poster. The >> idea is that you can ask a question about git without *having* to >> subscribe to read all the other stuff. But of course, reading some of >> the other stuff will make you a more competent git user pretty fast, >> so it might be worth it anyway. > > Interesting, I have never once in 15+ years of mailing lists, seen a list work this > way. Pretty nice to not have to subscribe. Amazing that there is not spam all over this list. I'm guessing they just use a good spam scanner. >> You should probably look at getting a good book on version control. >> You can find *these* using Google, including free online ones, now >> that you know this is what you should do :) > > Ok, I will look into it. I am really hoping there is a "4 command to using > git" type of thing. I think I even heard that Joel Spolsky guy state > something along those lines; that he has gotten by with version control > on 4 commands. I can not remember if it was git he was referring to though. No, it was mercurial. As I recall, he then went on to decide that trying to use it with only four commands wasn't the right approach and you should actually learn about it, and wrote a series of tutorials. It's generally agreed (though perhaps not among everyone on this list :)) that mercurial is easier to learn at first than git. However, in my experience, once you've spent the time to learn how git works, you also gain a lot more than with any other system. It's ridiculously powerful, in the same way that Unix is powerful. Then again, if you're running on a Mac, there are some GUI-based git tools available. I've heard good things about GitX, though I haven't tried it myself. >> source code almost never *needs* >> these resource forks: only finished products do, and those are usually >> built *from* the source code. As part of the build process, you add >> the resource forks and xattrs onto the completed files. > > Yes, very true, except in the case of AppleScripts and Automator actions. > Which can be "compiled" and finished apps, but also can be raw source files. > However, I believe that even those, being that they run in their own development > environment, have resources and other attributes that have to be maintained. As I understand it, almost everything in OS X avoids requiring resource forks nowadays. You'll probably be okay. Have fun, Avery -- 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