Re: svn versus git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday 2006 December 14 09:44, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I would say pretending as if cat-file is a Porcelain is the
> unfair part.

I had to; there is no other equivalent of "svn cat" in git.

> Again, mistaking ls-tree as if it was a Porcelain is the true
> cause of the newbie confusion.

Again, there is no other equivalent of "svn list" in git.

> If a Porcelain level "ls" is needed (and I am doubtful about
> usefulness of "svn list -r538" like command), that is the

Me too.  I was in no way advocating that git should try to be SVN (shudder).  
As I was comparing though, I had to pick git commands that did at least what 
SVN could do.

> command you would want to teach about using ls-files and ls-tree
> depending on what the end users want in their workflow.

Personally, I think qgit fills an awfully big hole in svn that makes them all 
irrelevant.  qgit is a much better repository browsing tool than "svn list" 
is.



Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE
andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]