Re: Gitbox

From: Taylor Hedberg <tmhedberg@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2011, 20:26 UTC
Message-ID: <20110413202627.GD11019@foodlogiq3-xp-d620>
In-Reply-To: <1302725089.22408.11.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>

Drew Northup, Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:04:49PM -0400:

Show 6 quoted lines

> If that's what he's doing then why does he state that the git binaries
> are "for your convenience only"--strongly implying his program will
> work in the absence thereof? I'm hoping he just made a typo--as what
> he said is there in plain English, and is somewhat contradicted by the
> next sentence. If he's indeed using the plumbing then the binaries are
> required--which is indeed what they are there for.

I didn't detect that implication at all. I took it to mean that he is distributing Git alongside his frontend because it would not function properly without it. It's a "convenience" in the sense that if he didn't bundle the Git binaries, you'd have to install them separately in order to use his product. Why would he bother to include Git itself if the product worked just fine without it?

> I think that I've already proved myself to be one of the list's
> resident grammar nazis. If you wish to dispute my interpretation of
> his grammar please contact me directly and don't bother the rest of
> the list.

Sending this to the list anyway, because it seems germane to the overall discussion.