Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I am glad I read this. I was going to try it. Subversion at least has very good Windows tools.
  • seriously, this feedback should go to git@vger.kernel.org rather than here.

    Did you find the user manual normally bundled with git in the end, and was it helpful?

    Did you find git-gui and/or gitk ?

    What missing features or interfaces do you think are the most important to get started for new Windows users?

    • Some additional feedback, following your suggestions.

      I've taken another look through the various trees that git installed.

      It does NOT come with any sort of manual that I can discern.

      I did see the gitk.bat launcher when I was looking through bin. I ran it and got an error message that appears to be from one of the commands, and then it shut down.

      I also noticed the git-gui at the time as well. It's a non-executable shell script and thus non-functional on Windows.

      What is missing for Windows uses?

      Well putting o
  • Well done. Test an alpha version, which is also _marked_ as such, and then complain.

    I mean, really. Cygwin Git is functional since long ago. MinGW Git is _not even in any official release_. You did not even bother to research that.

    But I guess that is to be expected, as it is to be expected that Windows users will _never_ help to improve on the programs they want to use.

    I see git gui improving day by day. I see MinGW Git improving day by day. And I see _nothing_ coming from Windows users.

    But then it al
    • Well done. Read a short review, which makes no reference to an assumption that it is an official release, and assume because the reviewer is using Windows that they implicitly hate you.

      Firstly, I couldn't care less about cygwin. I've had enough problems with it over the years that I simply am not going to use it. There's too much pain there.

      As for not researching, I'm quite aware this isn't a mainline release. I noticed that from the fact the download URI was from some third-party URI.

      Further, it DOES suck,
      • I do not know how you came to the conclusion that the installer (I guess you were using the one from lilypond.org) would be usable.

        It is _known_ that it lacks bash and perl, for example, and Git is not usable without bash and perl for the moment. It is not even a proof-of-concept git, but a proof-of-concept installer.

        It's as if you would take an architect's model of a house and complain that it is so small that you cannot live in there.

        So no, there is no excuse that you tested the installer. None at all.

        T
        • I asked the biggest proponents of git there are in the Perl world, and that's what they gave me. People that have been using git a long time, and I trust.

          Up until that point I'd been told that there wasn't a native Win32 version to test, and so there was no need to do anything.

          I'd be happy to amend the review from "git sucks on native win32" to "there is not git available for native Win32".

          Unless you have something else I should look at?
          • Okay, here's the deal: I offered on #git to anybody to pack the files, and give instructions to install/use it.

            But. I want something in return.

            See, I am not really interested in the spread of Git. I am interested in making it more usable, mainly for myself. I am not at all interested in working for free.

            So if you want me to work for you, you have to compensate me somehow. One possibility: you maintain a graphical installer for Windows. Another, you become eternal tester.

            If you do not want to give me so
            • I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

              Perl is looking for a new version control system.

              Git is competing with several other choices, most notably svn.

              It's not up to US to make those competitors work properly on other operating systems.

              They simply get examined on their existing merits, debated, and eventually something will be chosen.

              And as you might have noticed with the Firefox people, who had to make the same decision, if git is not competitive for that user group, it will lose.

              The only decision for the ver
              • Git did not lose, when Firefox chose something else.

                You are free to chose anything else, and frankly, given the way you tested Git, I suggest you do.

                I asked myself for a very short moment what you would have said if I tested an alpha version of a Perl installer, which is not supposed to run on Windows 98, and then complained loudly on my blog that Perl sucks. But it was only a short moment. I don't really care. Promised. My last word on this.
                • > I asked myself for a very short moment what you would have said if I
                  > tested an alpha version of a Perl installer, which is not supposed to
                  > run on Windows 98, and then complained loudly on my blog that Perl
                  > sucks.

                  Dammit, baited.

                  http://vanillaperl.com/files/strawberry-perl-5.8.8-alpha-2.exe [vanillaperl.com]

                  Go nuts
                • You are free to chose anything else, and frankly, given the way you tested Git, I suggest you do.

                  That's exactly what he said he was going to do, and so I'm not sure why you're so worked up over it.

                  It's clear that right now git and this person have nothing to offer each other. I don't see a reason for either side to be mad at the other over that fact.

                  --
                  J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
              • And as you might have noticed with the Firefox people, who had to make the same decision, if git is not competitive for that user group, it will lose.

                Mozilla went with Mercurial, and I think if Perl were to do the same then it would be a very good outcome, not really a loss at all. I've been saying this all along of course :-)

                In fact I'd be more than happy to deliver my history restoration work as a Mercurial repository if that was considered the way forward.

        • I do not know how you came to the conclusion that the installer (I guess you were using the one from lilypond.org) would be usable.

          Why else would you distribute an installer?

          • Oh, did we?

            Is it on git.kernel.org? No.

            Is it on repo.or.cz, which is less obviously a backup Git site? No.

            Is it on a website which is not really related to Git? Yes.

            So, why on earth do you say we distribute it?
            • So, why on earth do you say we distribute it?

              Some Git user did. Feel free to take my use of a rhetorical pronoun personally; I'm sure you will anyway.