[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: TortoiseGIT.

From: Richard Quadling <rquadling_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:15:33 +0100

On 23/04/2008, Nicholas Wourms <nwourms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tobias Schäfer <tobiasschaefer_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Monday 21 April 2008 15:19:19 Richard Quadling wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > One of the projects I use TortoiseSVN for has moved to GIT. Are there
> > > any plans for a TortoiseGIT?
> >
> > I haven't read about any discussions on this mailing list.
> > This is only project I am aware of: http://repo.or.cz/w/git-cheetah.git/
> > but it's still at the very beginning.
> >
> >
> > > Alternatively, would it be possible/feasible, to have a sort of 1 size
> > > fits all extension for CVS/SVN/GIT/xxx/yyy/zzz?
> > >
> > > Or a TortoiseGeneric with CSV/SVN/GIT/xxx/yyy/zzz plugins.
> > >
> > > Would be useful I think.
> >
> > This question has come up before. The consent was that the clients would not
> > have that much in common because the workflow is different in the various
> > version control systems. Coordinating the projects would be to much work.
> > You'll find more details in the archives.
> >
> But CVS and SVN workflows are similar enough, since the goal of svn
> was to preserve as much of the workflow as possible while improving
> the internals. Plus, TortoiseCVS is showing its age and probably would
> benefit from being retrofitted into TortoiseSVN's more modern gui
> interface. What is the barrier here? CvsNT has been modularized to the
> extent that requiring spawning of cvs.exe is no longer necessary. Both
> projects make use of putty for ssh activities. It seems like it would
> work nicely. Also, consolidation would be optimal in this case, since
> having more shell extensions tend to make explorer slower to respond.

I can't comment on the nitty gritty of CVS/SVN, but as a user I ...

Get files from the CVS/SVN server.
I edit files locally.
I make patches to be emailed as I don't have the ability to commit
I commit to the server as I do have the ability to commit

Fundamentally, isn't this consistent across all versioning systems?

Alternatively, from a UI persepective, what is inconsistent between
the different systems?

I am a happy user of these products and my comments above are not criticisms.

But unless you guys have the time/energy to do this, I suppose the
point is moot.

But hopefully not. An interesting product which has built-in
anti-obsolescence by being expandable for new technologies ... Go for
it! <grin>


Richard Quadling.

Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
Received on 2008-04-23 11:15:41 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.