use Perl

• To be expected: Alpha version. (Score:1)

  by Dscho (8021)

  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
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Alias (5735)

    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,
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Dscho (8021)

      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
      • Re:To be expected: Alpha version. (Score:1)

        by chromatic (983) on 2007.07.23 1:05 (#56411) Homepage Journal

        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?

        Reply to This

        Parent

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Dscho (8021)

          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?
          • Re: (Score:1)

            by chromatic (983)

            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.