[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Switching to git?

From: Gregg C Levine
Subject: RE: Switching to git?
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:11:20 -0500

That comment about Cygwin is decidedly not true.

The collection is unstable as designed. It is an evolving collection of
ports based within reason on the same framework we have on Linux, and yes on
the BSD family. The big problem is what it's sitting on, and that's why it
is a moving target. The groups behind it are continuing to update and revise
the compatibility layer behind it.

I am afraid it will continue to be unstable as it continues to be evolving.

I should also add that the people behind my distribution do not like git
much either, however but they also include it. I've used it a few times. I
also do not like it much either.

I also have ambivalent feelings behind SVN and CVS. 

Both have their good points and their bad points. 

Bazaar and mercurial I am not at all fond of. 
Gregg C Levine address@hidden
"The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Vesa
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:30 PM
> To: The development of GRUB 2
> Subject: Re: Switching to git?
> Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Ok, now about the git. As TomC!E! pointed out, the lack of portability
> >> regression from CVS. If you think, for example, grub4dos is important,
> >> can you choose git?
> >
> > Agree on that too.
> >
> > It's not that bad[1] and users can use git with cygwin or via
> >
> > 1.
> Just leave cygwin out of the box... thank you!
> cygwin is one of the worst pieces of software that just does not work
> correctly. In my point-of-view portability means that you can use
> software natively on some platform and it does not include installing
> emulators or such to run software (like cygwin, wine).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]