From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: base Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:35:24 +0900 Message-ID: <87hbij6hib.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20100822120642.GA1794@muc.de> <87bp8uzu9d.fsf@mithlond.arda> <871v9o7dmf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87wrrg5rzg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87r5ho5gyr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282671550 12559 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2010 17:39:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , Leo , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 24 19:39:08 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnxSk-0003Pk-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:39:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52900 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnxSk-0002Oo-Dc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:39:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44533 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnxSd-0002O3-92 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:39:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnxSb-0003sL-Ny for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:58 -0400 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.254.161]:40950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnxSb-0003sA-9H; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:57 -0400 Original-Received: from imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0139AF4003; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:38:54 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (unknown [130.158.97.223]) by imss12.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B3EF4002; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:38:53 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E447B3FA0251; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:38:53 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 243EE1A47B8; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:35:24 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" ed3b274cc037 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:129166 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 14:32, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: > > > (except maybe Eli because of the Windows issues) > The "Windows issues" are quite real. Granted. However, they're real for *all* DVCSes. > So Bzr, with all its problems, at least has some compromise of > supporting Windows users, while on git it seems like we're barely > tolerated :-) I can't speak to the git side; I've never *ever* had enough trouble with git to need to get in touch with their MLs. ISTM that while the Bazaar devs pay lip service to Windows issues, they don't go much beyond that (and some issues like SSH configuration on Windows just don't ever seem to go away). > > but the UI badmouthing kept the discussion going > > long enough for other candidates to get serious consideration. > My English isn't good enoug to know whether "badmouthing" implies > falsehood or bad intention. It implies both. > That the UI is bad is IMHO entirely true. You are of course welcome to your opinion, and there's no need to be humble about it. I find your opinion hard to understand, however, because in basic, everyday usage git is *simpler* than bzr. You have essentially the same number of commands, they do mostly the same things: init, clone (missing in bzr), add, rm, mv (optional in git), commit, status, diff, log, pull, push, branch, checkout (optional with different semantics in bzr), reset (no single equivalent in bzr), merge: total 15 commands. Except that that's not enough to use bzr efficiently; bzr needs at least init-repo, and for many workflows update and switch (and checkout becomes required). That need is not obvious. It's true that specification of revisions in git is unfamiliar. But both hg and bzr have been forced to add git notation by popular demand. And I think it would be very odd for someone who's familiar with operators like "nthcdr" (which is "~" in git revision notation) to complain about it. It's rare to need any other notation (except in quite specialized situations).