Ross Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ross Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Richard Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> I've just spent a short time giving the crash test dummy procedure to a >>>> few git interfaces for emacs. All have their benefits. A lot have their >>>> negatives, But my immediate favourite for anyone thinking of using emacs >>>> interface to git for org is the following: >>>> >>>> http://tsgates.cafe24.com/git/git-emacs.html#sec1>> >>>> It doesn't come with a lot of default key bindings but the two most >>>> important for those familiar with vc-backend are there: >>>> >>>> C-x v v >>>> and >>>> C-x v = >>>> >>>> git-diff interfaces nicely to ediff. >>>> >>>> And the best thing is the one key press from git-status to bring up the >>>> wonderful "gitk" GUI interface which I wasn't aware of! Truly brilliant >>>> admin interface for git external to emacs. >>>> >>>> The best part of all is that it provides simple easy to see icons in the >>>> emacs status bar to show the git status. magic and egg tend to >>>> git-status centric as opposed to file centric. emacs-git is a nice >>>> mixture. It palms off the log/history interface to gitk - no need to >>>> reinvent the wheel. >>>> >>>> Simple, powerful, extensible. Recommended. >>>> >>>> Oh, but missing staging .... which magit and egg support but vc-git, >>>> git.el and emacs-git do not. I think ... >>> >>> I'm curious, did you evaluate dvc? >>> >>> http://www.xsteve.at/prg/emacs_dvc/dvc.html >> >> Nope. Damn. And why not? Because there was not a link on the Emacs Wiki >> for Git interfaces. And it didnt turn up in my basic Google. >> >> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Git >> >> :-( > > Yeah, and I'll add the lack of a *.deb for DVC to that complaint. :( > Maybe one of us ought to let the DVC folks know of our > complaints... Nah! :)
A Debian package? I gave up on them and installed CVS emacs 23. Why? The debian installation setup is simply too complex and kind of got me a blank stare from the gurus in irc #emacs. It's much nicer using a git emacs repository and getting the stuff I need manually. Also much easier to sync between different machines since each emacs directory is pretty much self contained. > >>> It aims to be a common emacs front end for most distributed version >>> control systems. >> >> Thanks for the pointer. >> >> I'll take a look. I like common interfaces. There's enough key strokes >> to remember in emacs as it is. >> >> But I must say emacs-git impresses me the more I play with it. And git >> itself just seems to be a solution that was waiting for a problem to >> invent it. It's simply "nice and clean" from what i can gather of it. > > Well in all honesty, I've barely used git at all and I've only used DVC > for hg/mercurial, just thought you might want to get a look at it. :) > > Ross I just started to read about git's history. You have to love Torwalds. He shoots from the hip as well as being a smart sod. http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/19/HNtorvaldswork_1.html ,---- | Torvalds seemed aware that his decision to drop BitKeeper would also be | controversial. When asked why he called the new software, "git," British | slang meaning "a rotten person," he said. "I'm an egotistical bastard, | so I name all my projects after myself. First Linux, now git." `---- Sure. I bet there's someone at BitKeeper whose name begins with "g" ... Although I notice the letters "git" are in the first 5 letters of Tridgell too. Nah ... ,---- | Torvalds is clearly unhappy about being forced off BitMover. He called | Tridgell's client a "bad project," and said that the software it | produced has no benefit to Linux developers, BitMover, or even Tridgell | himself. | | "It ended up hurting people that didn't agree with (Tridgell)," he said | of the software. "And it doesn't actually help anybody, since it only | assured its own irrelevance by making BitKeeper no longer be available." | | In the last week, Linux's creator has come under fire for publicly | slamming Tridgell's efforts. Critics say that Tridgell's | reverse-engineering of BitKeeper is analagous to the work Torvalds | himself has done with Linux, which itself is based on Unix. | | But in the e-mail interview Torvalds explained his perspective, using | his usual brand of utilitarianism. | | According to Torvalds, Tridgell's software was "bad" simply because it | ultimately served no useful purpose. "To me, a program is only as good | as what it does," he said. "In this case, it only caused problems." `---- _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
