In response to the current p5p git vs svn debate, I've been wanting to try it out on Win32 (my desktop OS) but I absolutely refuse to install cygwin (it chucks a bunch of stuff in the environment and path as a result messes up certain native Perl CPAN installation stuff).
Someone finally handed me a link to an installer for the mingw git port.
Ran the installer, cute there's a message from Linus in the license click-through, install install install install... done.
OK, now what... hmm... no desktop icons, no quickbar (dock) icons, no entries in the start menu. OK, so to the console! Hmm... "git" does nothing... so git doesn't put itself into the path either...
OK, but there's a C:\Program Files\Git\usr\bin directory will all 50 .exe files in it... uuuummmm....
Running "git" obviously gives me the main git application, but there's no docs and I'm on the train, so there's no help information. Several of the more interesting looking commands turn out to be shell scripts, which doesn't help at all because they won't run (BIG ones too, some run to 2500 lines of shell, ugh).
Some shellish-looking programs exist, but running them doesn't seem to do much of anything, except pop up some windows that either look useless (meaning they are probably triggered by other of the 50 .exe files) or give me what looks like a regular shell... except it doesn't do anything and ./shellscript doesn't work in them either.
Give up in disgust and move on to actual productive work.
So, in summary, the git native port (mingw) is utterly unusable if you don't know git already, and looks very much like a work in progress.
It fails Ashton's Law miserably. I'll try it out again in another few months.
Did you find the user manual normally bundled with git in the end, and was it helpful?
Did you find git-gui and/or gitk ?
What missing features or interfaces do you think are the most important to get started for new Windows users?
Re:please direct this comment somewhere useful
Alias on 2007-07-20T07:52:00
Some additional feedback, following your suggestions.
I've taken another look through the various trees that git installed.
It does NOT come with any sort of manual that I can discern.
I did see the gitk.bat launcher when I was looking through bin. I ran it and got an error message that appears to be from one of the commands, and then it shut down.
I also noticed the git-gui at the time as well. It's a non-executable shell script and thus non-functional on Windows.
What is missing for Windows uses?
Well putting on my stupid Windows user hat here, I'd say the follwing.
1. A manual
2. Something to click on that does SOMETHING
3. An entry in the Start Menu that points to both the manual and the things I'm supposed to run.
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Alias on 2007-07-22T14:35:04
Well done. Read a short review, which makes no reference to an assumption that it is an official release, and assume because the reviewer is using Windows that they implicitly hate you.
Firstly, I couldn't care less about cygwin. I've had enough problems with it over the years that I simply am not going to use it. There's too much pain there.
As for not researching, I'm quite aware this isn't a mainline release. I noticed that from the fact the download URI was from some third-party URI.
Further, it DOES suck, for all the reasons I mentioned. If it was that bad on Linux or any other platform I'd still say it sucks.
As you will have noted, I even described it as a "work in progress" which pretty much a perfect description of of alpha software.
If the best that git has to offer for native Windows is alpha-grade software with an installer that doesn't do much more than unzip some files and is completely opaque, then it DOES suck. It really really really sucks!
And it is completely irrelevant if you see git getting better every day, if that progress is simply "still sucks, but a bit less", every day.
Even if I WANTED to become a git user, I can't at the moment. That is not MY problem. I don't care about git one way or the other, I'm merely reviewing the state of Win32 natively to compare it to other options.
If git is getting better, than in a few months when I try it out again, I will have different things to say about the current state of git on Win32.
But then it already seems from the first paragraph that you are utterly partisan and hostile to anything anyone has to say negative about git, and have immediately classified me into "Windows users" and assumed I am actively hostile to git.
Ah well.Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Dscho on 2007-07-22T14:48:14
I do not know how you came to the conclusion that the installer (I guess you were using the one from lilypond.org) would be usable.
It is _known_ that it lacks bash and perl, for example, and Git is not usable without bash and perl for the moment. It is not even a proof-of-concept git, but a proof-of-concept installer.
It's as if you would take an architect's model of a house and complain that it is so small that you cannot live in there.
So no, there is no excuse that you tested the installer. None at all.
There is also no excuse that you did not even bother asking on the mailing list what to do, if you hate the official Win32 version using Cygwin.
But hey, you wanted it to look bad, and you succeeded. Classical SEP.Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Alias on 2007-07-23T04:25:22
I asked the biggest proponents of git there are in the Perl world, and that's what they gave me. People that have been using git a long time, and I trust.
Up until that point I'd been told that there wasn't a native Win32 version to test, and so there was no need to do anything.
I'd be happy to amend the review from "git sucks on native win32" to "there is not git available for native Win32".
Unless you have something else I should look at?
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Dscho on 2007-07-23T09:48:18
Okay, here's the deal: I offered on #git to anybody to pack the files, and give instructions to install/use it.
But. I want something in return.
See, I am not really interested in the spread of Git. I am interested in making it more usable, mainly for myself. I am not at all interested in working for free.
So if you want me to work for you, you have to compensate me somehow. One possibility: you maintain a graphical installer for Windows. Another, you become eternal tester.
If you do not want to give me something back, why should I be interested in working on something that I do not need?Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Alias on 2007-07-23T13:49:03
I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.
Perl is looking for a new version control system.
Git is competing with several other choices, most notably svn.
It's not up to US to make those competitors work properly on other operating systems.
They simply get examined on their existing merits, debated, and eventually something will be chosen.
And as you might have noticed with the Firefox people, who had to make the same decision, if git is not competitive for that user group, it will lose.
The only decision for the version control system to use so far is "Not Perforce".
If you don't care about the spread of git, then there's really no point for you to be commenting in this journal. And regardless, even if I or the Perl Foundation DID want to pay someone to make git work better (or if there's no native Win32 as you say, work at all) on Win32, I'm quite sure it would not be to someone with such a bad attitude.
We already have a number of quite friendly people I'm sure would be more appropriate.
I'm done responding on this now.Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Dscho on 2007-07-23T14:35:11
Git did not lose, when Firefox chose something else.
You are free to chose anything else, and frankly, given the way you tested Git, I suggest you do.
I asked myself for a very short moment what you would have said if I tested an alpha version of a Perl installer, which is not supposed to run on Windows 98, and then complained loudly on my blog that Perl sucks. But it was only a short moment. I don't really care. Promised. My last word on this.Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Alias on 2007-07-23T14:45:43
> I asked myself for a very short moment what you would have said if I
> tested an alpha version of a Perl installer, which is not supposed to
> run on Windows 98, and then complained loudly on my blog that Perl
> sucks.
Dammit, baited.
http://vanillaperl.com/files/strawberry-perl-5.8.8-alpha-2.exe
Go nuts
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
jdavidb on 2007-07-23T16:31:04
You are free to chose anything else, and frankly, given the way you tested Git, I suggest you do.That's exactly what he said he was going to do, and so I'm not sure why you're so worked up over it.
It's clear that right now git and this person have nothing to offer each other. I don't see a reason for either side to be mad at the other over that fact.
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
mugwumpjism on 2007-07-23T16:24:50
And as you might have noticed with the Firefox people, who had to make the same decision, if git is not competitive for that user group, it will lose.Mozilla went with Mercurial, and I think if Perl were to do the same then it would be a very good outcome, not really a loss at all. I've been saying this all along of course
:-) In fact I'd be more than happy to deliver my history restoration work as a Mercurial repository if that was considered the way forward.
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
chromatic on 2007-07-23T06:05:39
I do not know how you came to the conclusion that the installer (I guess you were using the one from lilypond.org) would be usable.Why else would you distribute an installer?
Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
Dscho on 2007-07-23T09:51:56
Oh, did we?
Is it on git.kernel.org? No.
Is it on repo.or.cz, which is less obviously a backup Git site? No.
Is it on a website which is not really related to Git? Yes.
So, why on earth do you say we distribute it?Re:To be expected: Alpha version.
chromatic on 2007-07-23T14:02:50
So, why on earth do you say we distribute it?Some Git user did. Feel free to take my use of a rhetorical pronoun personally; I'm sure you will anyway.
