Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
I said "git support on windows is subpar: it requires cygwin or the msys shell" and people answered: "no, tortoiseGIT is a great GUI". To me, this implied that they couldn't dispute my original claim. Nobody said anything about its command line support until I said that a GUI was not enough.On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:29:28 +0300, Jérôme M. Berger <jeber...@free.fr> wrote:Leandro Lucarella wrote:You have a good command-line support.Maybe you do, but that's not the impression the Git fans here were giving: - Robert Fraser on win32 support: "git's Win32 support via TortoiseGit is nearly as good as SVN's now" - All the discussion between BCS, hasen and Daniel Keep on tortoise git.I don't get it - how can you assume that just because people say that git has a good GUI for Windows (TortoiseGit), it doesn't have a decent command-line version? Making a port of the command-line version is much easier that creating a Win32 GUI. Like someone else mentioned in this thread - git's Win32 command-line support is now on par with Linux, and it doesn't require you to install cygwin or use a separate shell (bash).
Regarding your point about porting a command-line being easier: that is true in theory but not always in practice. Since git is partly written in bash shell scripts, porting it to Windows so that it could run in any shell is not that easy at all.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
