On 07/11/2011 09:32 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> (i) is certainly fixable, in the sense that we can spawn "git status" >> and check the return value, but it is not as easy as looking for >> .svn, say. > > We can just copy-paste the code that git uses itself to detect whether > it is in a repo or not ? > I'm a bit curious how it does this, actually. I mean: In such a way as properly to follow symlinks. I run into this kind of problem often. E.g., what ".." means seems to vary in a way I do not understand if you are in a symlinked directory.
Anyway, there is "git status" and there is also "git rev-parse --git-dir", if we want to find the .git directory, for some reason. >> (ii) is definitely a different issue. > > it depends on how complex you want to make. You can easily mimick the > svn workflow: push after every commit. Or you can make two options: > commit and push. Not so big deal, right ? > I don't think we'd want to do the former. Certainly you can do the latter, but it does mean doing something different from what we do with other VCs, which means different menu options, etc. Not impossible, but more work. Or we can just commit, as Rainer suggested, and leave pushing to the user. I suspect that in many cases, pushing may not even be an option, as there may be no remote. That's one of the great things about git, that I use all the time now: totally local repos. Richard
