Re: Adding Git to Better SCM Initiative : Comparison
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 30, 2007, 00:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200711300118.28145.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071129200710.GA3314@steel.home>
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
> Jakub Narebski, Thu, Nov 29, 2007 03:26:12 +0100:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> + <s id="git"> >> + Medium. There's Git User's Manual, manpages, some >> + technical documentation and some howtos. All >> + documentation is also available online in HTML format; >> + there is additional information (including beginnings >> + of FAQ) on git wiki. >> + Nevertheles one of complaints in surveys is insufficient > > "Nevertheless" (two "s"). > > BTW, I wouldn't call the level of documentation "Medium" when compared > to any commercial SCM. How can they earn more than "a little", when > compared to any opensource program?
Source code is not [user level] documentation.
But perhaps it should be "Good" instead of "Medium", although I think not "Excellent".
Show 11 quoted lines
>> @@ -894,6 +938,14 @@ TODO: >> to install the subversion perl bindings and a few modules >> from CPAN. >> </s> >> + <s id="git"> >> + TO DO. RPMs and deb packages for Linux. msysGit and >> + Cygwin for Win32 - Git requires POSIX shell, Perl, >> + and POSIX utilities for some commands (builtin). > > I read this as: "Git requires all these programs for builtin > commands". Which is a bit confusing. Just drop "(builtin)"?
What I meant to say that some Git commands are scripts in Perl or POSIX shell, and that those Git commands requires POSIX utilities (which of those utilities are needed is unfortunately not mentioned explicitely in the INSTALL file); _but_ that there is ongoing effort to rewrite matured commands in C (as built-ins).
But this is perhaps too long explanation to put it in this comparison table.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> + Autoconf to generate Makefile configuration; ready >> + generic configuration for many OS. Compiling docs >> + requires asciidoc and xmlto toolchain, but prebuild. > > "prebuilt" (with "t"). Maybe remove ", but prebuilt" completely?
Gaaah, it should be "but you can get prebuilt docs".
Show 11 quoted lines
>> @@ -1106,6 +1165,10 @@ TODO: >> There exists some HTTP-functionality, but it is quite >> limited. >> </s> >> + <s id="git"> >> + Good. Uses HTTPS (with WebDAV) or ssh for push, >> + HTTP, FTP, ssh or custom protocol for fetch. >> + </s> > > You forgot bundles (aka SneakerNet). > Again, compared to everyone else it is "vastly superior" :)
Bundles and patches (peer review!) I think truly move it from "Good" to "Excellent".
>> <s id="mercurial"> >> Excellent. Uses HTTP or ssh. Remote access also >> works safely without locks over read-only network
By the way, can Git be used with repository on lockless network filesystem? (Although with distributed SCM it perhaps be better to just use many distributed repositories...). How does it work with repository available via SMBFS / CIFS or NFS?
Show 11 quoted lines
>> @@ -1203,6 +1266,10 @@ TODO: >> Very good. Supports many UNIXes, Mac OS X, and Windows, >> and is written in a portable language. >> </s> >> + <s id="git">TO DO. >> + Good. Portable across all POSIX systems. >> + There exists Win32 binary using MinGW. >> + </s> > > "binaries": MinGW and Cygwin. And it is definitely "excellent" by the > standards of the site.
I'd say excellent on POSIX systems, good on Win32 (there are still as far as I remember some troubles). I hope that gitbox project would succeed, and one would need only single binary (plus perhaps wish for GUI, and DLLs) to use git on MS Windows.
-- Jakub Narebski Poland