Andy Parkins <andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > What about the oft-asked for windows port? From what I've seen, none of the > Unix types have any incentive to do this, so a financial incentive might be > just the thing. + 1. It seems the windows port somewhat has the status "we want it but I'm not going to do it" for most git contributors. I'm personnally using unix 99% of the time, but I also have a piece of windows installed on my laptop. For example, I'm working on a small project using windows-only software, and being able to use git comfortably from this setup would be cool. Also, I'm relucant to migrate to git completely even for unix-only projects, since I know that a hypothetical future windows-port will be made hard by the non-availability of the windows port. > Given that the best thing for git in the long term is more users, That's what I feel. The problem with distributed SCMs at the moment is that there are too many of them, not sharing enough users. For example, I had to choose a replacement for CVS with some colleagues recently. I argued about using a distributed one, but the argument against, and the decision was "SVN is what they're more likely to use later, let's go for SVN no matter how bad it is". > and that no windows support is the commonly given reason why other > SCMs are chosen instead, this would be a good use of the resources. Sure. One of the best examples being Mozilla. I hardly see them using a piece of software that's not working properly on windows, since the majority of users (and probably of the developers, I don't know) are running windows. -- Matthieu - 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