Subject: Re: svn versus git

From: Andy Parkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:42:08 +0000

On Thursday 2006 December 14 09:44, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I would say pretending as if cat-file is a Porcelain is the
> unfair part.

I had to; there is no other equivalent of "svn cat" in git.

> Again, mistaking ls-tree as if it was a Porcelain is the true
> cause of the newbie confusion.

Again, there is no other equivalent of "svn list" in git.

> If a Porcelain level "ls" is needed (and I am doubtful about
> usefulness of "svn list -r538" like command), that is the

Me too.  I was in no way advocating that git should try to be SVN (shudder).  
As I was comparing though, I had to pick git commands that did at least what 
SVN could do.

> command you would want to teach about using ls-files and ls-tree
> depending on what the end users want in their workflow.

Personally, I think qgit fills an awfully big hole in svn that makes them all 
irrelevant.  qgit is a much better repository browsing tool than "svn list" 
is.

Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE