Re: svn versus git
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 14, 2006, 10:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200612141042.09453.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vodq695ha.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
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