Re: Last mile to 1.0?

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jul 23, 2005, 17:09 UTC
Message-ID: <7vzmsdqwiw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050723085031.GD3255@mythryan2.michonline.com>

Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com> writes:

> How is this for a start?

A very good start indeed.  Thanks.

> Git falls into the category of distributed source code management tools,
> similar to Arch or Darcs (or, in the commercial world, BitKeeper).  This
> means that every working directory is a full-fledged repository with
> full revision tracking capabilities.

I think Kevin's comment is valid and his description is reasonable.

>   o A collection of related projects are building on the core Git
>     project, either to provide an easier to use interface on top (Darcs,
>     Mercurial, StGit, Cogito), or to take some of the underlying concepts
>     and reimplement them directly into another system (Arch 2.0).

I think you would want to drop Darcs and Mercurial from the "on top" list. If I understand correctly, Mercurial is independently written with its own on-disk formats [*1*]. It would be very unfair to put Darcs in "building on" category. They've been there for quite some time with their own repository format and the tools and interfaces are reasonably mature.

Instead, please add gitk and gitweb to the list. We should not forget that these "mostly read-only" things are Porcelains.

[Footnote]

*1* It feels that actually it is done right. Its misfortune is that many core kernel people have already switched to git.