Hi, On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > > > > > The criteria would be changed as follows: > > > > > > --- snip --- > > > We release a stable version if: > > > * commands from "plumbing" and "core porcelain" equivalent to > > > official git are available in Git Bash and implemented in C. > > > (A list of commands would be added here.) > > > > That would take too long. IMHO having the whole merge stuff ported to > > C will need at least another 6 months. > > So you propose to release a stable version based on shell scripts? > Maybe we should be patient until we have a stable msysgit release and > push harder to have the C port done ASAP? Unless more people are participating in the effort, this will not be faster than 6 months; I even fully expect it to be slower. So yes, I would say we release a version with shell scripts. > > > * [DONE] git-gui works if run from Git Bash. > > > * [DONE] git-gui works if run from Start Menu. > > > * [DONE] git and git-gui available from Windows Command > > > Prompt (cmd shell). > > > * other command, such as "mail porcelain", "import/export", > > > "admin", "server" are *not* required, though commands from > > > these groups may be included. > > > > IMHO git-svn is a _must_. (Although I can be talked out of it.) > > > > My status so far: I got perl-5.8.8 compiled, subversion, too, but the > > perl bindings are a bit strange. For one, the Makefiles are written > > to somewhere completely bogus, and then they do not work properly. > > I can't say anything about this. I never used git-svn and I do not plan > to use it. Basically, I skipped svn. I tried it for some time and > wasn't really convinced by its advantages over CVS. So I hibernated > using CVS until eventually I found git. Yes, I did almost the same. But plenty of otherwise interesting projects did not. That's why I personally need svn. I even would need it for work right now, if I weren't so paranoid as to avoid typing a strong password into Windows. > > > * git-cheetah is *not* required. > > > > Yes, git-cheetah is nowhere near the state I would like to see it. > > Unfortunately, the only developer I could get interested so far seems > > to have lost interest, and I do not have enough time to take care of > > it. > > > > FWIW I think that we are stable enough already to have > > better-than-preview releases (although, like I said, lack of git-svn > > is a reason for me not to declare non-beta status yet). > > Currently, we install git-svn even that we know it won't work. > This is certainly not the type of installer I'd like to declare > beta. > > Maybe we could clearly state what we have and exclude all commands that > do not work from the installer. If we only installed stable commands > and give a clear indication on the perspective for the missing commands, > maybe we could do a beta release for plumbing and core porcelain. The > commands that are not ready would still be included in msysgit. So it > would be easy for developers to get and improve what we already have. > But end users would not see commands that do not work. That sounds good. These are the programs that do not work, AFAICT: - cvsexportcommit - cvsimport - send-email - svn > From my perspective, more important than getting git-svn is to merge the > core porcelain back to official git. I'd like to be able to build the > msysgit release from official git ASAP. After the 1.5.4 release, > there's hopefully a time window to make some progress on this. > Explicitly excluding commands from the msysgit end user release could > also be a way to approach this goal more quickly. It would be a good thing to get closer to official git.git. But I have no say in this, as I have not enough time to care about that. Ciao, Dscho
