Re: GIT on MinGW problem

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: May 26, 2007, 22:45 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705262343390.4648@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <7v4plzi508.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Sat, 26 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> In this, part of the pain is that Git tries to guess the version number
> >> by itself in a complicated way.
> >
> > Yes, I never understood that myself why it has to be so complicated. But 
> > then, it did not make _my_ life hard, so I did not care.
> 
> "echo "MyVersionNumber" >version && make"?

Good to know!

Show 6 quoted lines

> > OTOH, it _is_ a nice thing to protohype the new commands as shell or perl 
> > scripts. When they stabilize enough, convert them to builtins.
> 
> Protohype is a nice word.  Throw out a half-working stuff and
> advertise it as the best thing since sliced bread even before it
> starts to being useful ;-)

It started out as a typo. But then I liked it so much that I kept it ;-)

> > With add--interactive, I think it's better to leave it [...]
> 
> I do not follow you here.

You mentioned several times that you were unsure if add--interactive was a good idea. But I like it very much.

Show 11 quoted lines

> 
> > But remote will soon be the center of my crosshairs.
> 
> I am afraid that it might be a bit premature.
> 
> I've been hoping that we can make git-clone a thin wrapper
> around init/remote/fetch/checkout.  For one thing, we would want
> to split the separate-remotes layout and bareness to create
> "mirror" (I called it "pure" previously, but this is really a
> mirror) layout for git-clone, among other things, and that kind
> of enhancements would need to be done inside git-remote.

Fair enough.

Ciao, Dscho