VCS comparison table

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Yes. However, from a portability (to Windows) standpoint, shell is just 
> about the worst choice.
> 
> Not that perl/python/etc really help - unless the _whole_ program is one 
> perl/python thing. Windows just doesn't like pipelines etc very much.
> 
> So I'd like all the _common_ programs to be built-ins..
> 

And I would prefer the opposite because we're talking about git.  As an 
information manager, it should be seen and not heard.  Nobody is going to 
spend their time to become a git or CVS or perforce expert.  As an 
individual primarily interested in development, I should not be required 
to learn command lines for dozens of different git-specific commands to do 
my job quickly and effectively.  I would opt for a much more simpler 
approach and deal with shell scripting for many of these commands because 
I'm familiar with them and I can pipe any command with the options I 
already know and have used before to any other command.

As a developer on Linux based systems, I should not need to deal with 
code in a revision control system that is longer and less traceable 
because the authors of that system decided they wanted to support Windows 
too.  Moving away from the functionality that the shell provides is a 
mistake for a system such as git where it could be so advantageous because 
of the inherent nature of git as an information manager.

This is the reason why I was a fan of git long ago and used it for my own 
needs before tons of unnecessary features and unneeded complexity was 
added on.

		David