git vs git

Hi there,
as few of you might know, there existed a very nice mc/norton commander
orientated tool called git
      Homepage:    http://www.gnu.org/software/git/
      Description: GNU Interactive Tools - increase speed and
efficiency of most daily task

This package have been in existence since many summers, but the name choice for git - the stupid content tracker, seems to cause several weird problems when you don't want/expect it :(

Could the name git perhaps be reconsideredto something like SCT? or GnuSCT?

Just asking, as it do cause hassles when an environment is using git and suddenly need to load git to download newer drivers etc. and then git isn't working because the wrong git is in the right place :(

Thanx -- Hendrik Visage

this debate has taken place many times, please read the archives for the details.

short answer, no the name will not be changed unless new (as in different) arguments are made.

David Lang

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Hendrik Visage wrote:

On 1/30/06, Hendrik Visage <hvjunk@gmail.com> wrote:

IIRC, this was renaming itself to "gitfm". So perhaps you'd like to ask the maintainer of this tool what the status of that is.

josh

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 05:14:28PM +0200, Hendrik Visage wrote:

Yes, this has been discussed in the past.

GNU git development is dead. The last release is from March 13, 2000.

I don't think that will happen. The number of source control git users outnumbers the number of GNU git users, so consider it a lost case.

I think we found the only GNU git user in the world! ;-)

A simple workaround would be to install git in a directory not in your path and put a shell script "sct" in your path that just calls git. Something like (untested):

  #! /bin/sh
  # sct: call git
  gitpath=/path/to/git
  export PATH=$gitpath:$PATH
  exec $gitpath/git $*

Erik

On 1/30/06, Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:

Hmm... liked to know the search terms to use :(

That doesn't mean it's not used extensively :)

Okay, this is the point where the "number of git developers outnumber the number of GNU git developers" is more correct :(

You might be surprised, it much nicer IMO than mc

The problem is that the distro people are having troubles deciding how to make this work and us users are having to suffer this :(

Actually it's at the point where I can't use/install cogito because I already have GNU git installed, and the name clashes... so I can't do disecting searches on my AMD64 with problems in a certain device driver since 2.6.13 :(

-- Hendrik Visage

Hi,

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Hendrik Visage wrote:

"GNU Interactive Tools" ;-)

Ciao, Dscho

Erik> #! /bin/sh Erik> # sct: call git Erik> gitpath=/path/to/git Erik> export PATH=$gitpath:$PATH Erik> exec $gitpath/git $*

You must not get a lot of spaces in your pathnames. I think you want those last two lines to be:

        export PATH="$gitpath:$PATH"
        exec "$gitpath/git" "$@"

Typical lazy shell programmer. :) :)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:55:36AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

That usually doesn't happen in the kernel tree (which is what the OP wants to follow).

Hey, I said "untested" :) But yeah, you're right. Your syntax is correct, every time I write such a wrapper I try to remember it...

Erik

Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> writes:

I would tolerate if you say it apologetically, but let all of us try to refrain from sending something marked *proudly* as "untested".

That is a privilege reserved for only a few ;-) Currently only one -- Linus.

On 1/31/06, Hendrik Visage <hvjunk@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I just hit this yesterday on a colleage's machine who was trying to get going with git.His first try was to `apt-get install git` and as that didn't lead anywhere he fetched the git (scm) sources and built them.

Apparently GNU GIT's git binary was earlier in the path than GIT SCM's and so stuff broke very creatively. As soon as I did `git --version` I understood what was happening and a swift `apt-get remove git` fixed it. But it can sure mess the day for any user trying to install git naively.

Not sure how to deal with this. Packages already record (or can record) it as a conflict, but source built stuff is different. Perhaps during `make install` we should try and exec git --version towards the end and print a big fat warning?

cheers,

m

On 1/30/06, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Or stop the egos and do a name change as would be the honourable way especially as gitscm is less than a year old...

-- Hendrik Visage