[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git recommendations
Re: [Orgmode] Re: Git recommendations
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:47:42 +0100
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
Ross Patterson <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Riley <address@hidden> writes:
>> Ross Patterson <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Richard Riley <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> I've just spent a short time giving the crash test dummy procedure to a
>>>> few git interfaces for emacs. All have their benefits. A lot have their
>>>> negatives, But my immediate favourite for anyone thinking of using emacs
>>>> interface to git for org is the following:
>>>> It doesn't come with a lot of default key bindings but the two most
>>>> important for those familiar with vc-backend are there:
>>>> C-x v v
>>>> C-x v =
>>>> git-diff interfaces nicely to ediff.
>>>> And the best thing is the one key press from git-status to bring up the
>>>> wonderful "gitk" GUI interface which I wasn't aware of! Truly brilliant
>>>> admin interface for git external to emacs.
>>>> The best part of all is that it provides simple easy to see icons in the
>>>> emacs status bar to show the git status. magic and egg tend to
>>>> git-status centric as opposed to file centric. emacs-git is a nice
>>>> mixture. It palms off the log/history interface to gitk - no need to
>>>> reinvent the wheel.
>>>> Simple, powerful, extensible. Recommended.
>>>> Oh, but missing staging .... which magit and egg support but vc-git,
>>>> git.el and emacs-git do not. I think ...
>>> I'm curious, did you evaluate dvc?
>> Nope. Damn. And why not? Because there was not a link on the Emacs Wiki
>> for Git interfaces. And it didnt turn up in my basic Google.
> Yeah, and I'll add the lack of a *.deb for DVC to that complaint. :(
> Maybe one of us ought to let the DVC folks know of our
> complaints... Nah! :)
A Debian package? I gave up on them and installed CVS emacs 23. Why? The
debian installation setup is simply too complex and kind of got me a
blank stare from the gurus in irc #emacs. It's much nicer using a git
emacs repository and getting the stuff I need manually. Also much easier
to sync between different machines since each emacs directory is pretty
much self contained.
>>> It aims to be a common emacs front end for most distributed version
>>> control systems.
>> Thanks for the pointer.
>> I'll take a look. I like common interfaces. There's enough key strokes
>> to remember in emacs as it is.
>> But I must say emacs-git impresses me the more I play with it. And git
>> itself just seems to be a solution that was waiting for a problem to
>> invent it. It's simply "nice and clean" from what i can gather of it.
> Well in all honesty, I've barely used git at all and I've only used DVC
> for hg/mercurial, just thought you might want to get a look at it. :)
I just started to read about git's history. You have to love
Torwalds. He shoots from the hip as well as being a smart sod.
| Torvalds seemed aware that his decision to drop BitKeeper would also be
| controversial. When asked why he called the new software, "git," British
| slang meaning "a rotten person," he said. "I'm an egotistical bastard,
| so I name all my projects after myself. First Linux, now git."
Sure. I bet there's someone at BitKeeper whose name begins with "g" ...
Although I notice the letters "git" are in the first 5 letters of
Tridgell too. Nah ...
| Torvalds is clearly unhappy about being forced off BitMover. He called
| Tridgell's client a "bad project," and said that the software it
| produced has no benefit to Linux developers, BitMover, or even Tridgell
| "It ended up hurting people that didn't agree with (Tridgell)," he said
| of the software. "And it doesn't actually help anybody, since it only
| assured its own irrelevance by making BitKeeper no longer be available."
| In the last week, Linux's creator has come under fire for publicly
| slamming Tridgell's efforts. Critics say that Tridgell's
| reverse-engineering of BitKeeper is analagous to the work Torvalds
| himself has done with Linux, which itself is based on Unix.
| But in the e-mail interview Torvalds explained his perspective, using
| his usual brand of utilitarianism.
| According to Torvalds, Tridgell's software was "bad" simply because it
| ultimately served no useful purpose. "To me, a program is only as good
| as what it does," he said. "In this case, it only caused problems."