Subject: Why's Git called Git ?

From: "Aaron Gray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 03:18:12 +0100

>> I am toying with using a VCS for a set of related projects, either CVS
>> because its well known, SubVersion for ease of use, or Git as it is new.
>> Lots to descide upon, any pointers would be appreciated.
>
> CVS is showing it's age; mainly the fact that IIRC it began as a series of
> scripts over RCS, file level version control system, extending version
> control to sets of files, somewhat. Branching in CVS is serious PITA.
> Renaming _with_ retaining full and correct history: forget about it.

Okay, we like branching and forking.

> Subversion is "better CVS": still centralized, CVS infernal branching
> replaced by "cheap copy" branching. Well known, replaces CVS thorough OSS
> projects.

Okay.

> Git, Mercurial, Monotone, Bazaar-NG, Darcs are new brand of distributed 
> VCS.
> I really like notion of branching in Git; but be warned about tracking and
> not recording renames, and the need of explicit packing (the latter very
> minor). Powerfull, perhaps too powerfull for newbie user: but that is what
> Cogito is for (although now Git contains fairly large set of high-level
> commands).

We like to move forward.

>
>  http://git.or.cz/
>  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki
>  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Git
> and "Other version control software" at
>  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks

Yes, been there, thanks though.

> P.S. If you decide to use Git as VCS for your project, consider adding 
> entry
> about it on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitProjects wiki page.

Looks like I maybe doing a preliminary Windows Git HOWTO on the GitWiki, if 
no one else has trod this ground :) (Might need some proper help testing 
though)

Thanks,

Aaron