From: Andy Parkins Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:42:08 GMT Subject: Re: svn versus git 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