RE: missing: git api, reference, user manual and mission statement

From: Andrew Timberlake-Newell <andrew.timberlake-newell@allianceoneinc.com>
Date: Apr 20, 2005, 17:15 UTC
Message-ID: <004e01c545cc$97d9b780$9b11a8c0@allianceoneinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050419165809.GE12757@pasky.ji.cz>

Petr Baudis graced us with:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:36:32PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Klaus Robert Suetterlin <robert@mpe.mpg.de> told me that...
> > 1) There is no clear (e.g. by name) distinction between ``git as done
> > by Linus'', which is a kind of content addressable database with added
> > semantics, and ``git as done by the rest of You'', which is a kind of
> > SCM on top of Linuses stuff.
> 
> There is git and git-pasky (git-pasky is superset; therefore various
> patches floating around either get to git-pasky or to both). I'm not
> sure what else do you mean.

This goes back to the question of whether to rename git-pasky to cogito.

Perhaps the crucial question is: will the git plumbing be used for anything other than SCM?

If so, then it could be useful to differentiate by program name, so that we would know whether another project was utilizing git-plumbing or git-SCM.

If not, then there is effectively only one tool and the plumbing is a [crucial] portion thereof: a git (SCM and the file system around which it was built).

So what's the answer to the question? Anyone planning to use git (the file system) outside of the SCM?