git vs git

git vs git

[Hendrik Visage]

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

Re: git vs git

[David Lang]

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:

> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:14:28 +0200
> From: Hendrik Visage <hvjunk@gmail.com>
> To: david@dgreaves.com, git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: 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
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: git vs git

[Josh Boyer]

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

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

Re: git vs git

[Erik Mouw]

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

Yes, this has been discussed in the past.

> 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 :(

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

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

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.

> 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 :(

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

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: git vs git

[Hendrik Visage]

On 1/30/06, Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, this has been discussed in the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might be surprised, it much nicer IMO than mc

> 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):

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

Re: git vs git

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Hendrik Visage wrote:

> On 1/30/06, Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, this has been discussed in the past.
> 
> Hmm... liked to know the search terms to use :(

"GNU Interactive Tools" ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: git vs git

[Randal L. Schwartz]

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

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. :) :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: git vs git

[Erik Mouw]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:55:36AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Erik" == Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com> writes:
> 
> 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.

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

> I think you want
> those last two lines to be:
> 
>         export PATH="$gitpath:$PATH"
>         exec "$gitpath/git" "$@"
> 
> Typical lazy shell programmer. :) :)

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 -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: git vs git

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> 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...

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.

Re: git vs git

[Martin Langhoff]

On 1/31/06, Hendrik Visage <hvjunk@gmail.com> wrote:
> git isn't
> working because the wrong git is in the right place :(

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

Re: git vs git

[Hendrik Visage]

On 1/30/06, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Hendrik Visage <hvjunk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > git isn't
> > working because the wrong git is in the right place :(
>
> 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.
>
<snip>

> 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?

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