Re: Subversion

On 7/1/05, mathew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> It's also an additional umpteen-megabyte installation that is
>> a royal pain in the ass.
> Pfft. It sits in \cygwin, doesn't touch anything, doesn't even
> touch the registry. If you get sick of it you can just delete
> it. Windows programs don't get any less painful.

Obviously, you've not tried to do a reasonable install. As I
said, it's a lot more painful than you pretend.

>> In any case, I do all of my CVS and Subversion work directly
>> from TortoiseCVS and TortoiseSVN -- GUI interfaces that make
>> these as easy to use as Perforce and ClearCase, and millions
>> of times easier than the command-line tools.
> Millions of times? Apparently you don't know how to automate
> things properly at the command line.

And you're apparently an arrogant ass who doesn't know what he's
talking about and enjoying proving it. I know plenty well how to
automate -- you'd have to find someone who didn't have fifteen
years experience on the Unix command-line for your moronic
statement to be nearly correct. I also know that the information
that I get out of the graphical tools to which I refer is much
more useful than the command-line tools.

>> You know what? I *have* proper command-line editing,
>> completion, and history. This isn't 1995, and if you've not
>> used cmd.exe since 2002, you don't know what you're talking
>> about.
> F8 is not proper command line editing. If the Windows shell was
> any good, Microsoft wouldn't be completely replacing it with
> Monad.

As I said, you don't know what you're talking about. If you think
that F8 is command-line editing in Windows, you haven't used the
Windows command-line lately. I have proper command-line editing
(better than the crap emacs mode that bash defaults to, not quite
as good as the vi mode), most of the completion (not
command-completion) and a good history mechanism.

Monad, which I've used, by the way, is the replacement for an
entirely different reason than your asinine snobbishness. It's an
order of magnitude *different* than either cmd.exe or any Unix
shell, because it's a full object shell. You're not working on
files as much as you are on objects. Pipes are sent as object
messages. Once again, you don't know the first damned thing
you're talking about here.

> Anyhow, your religious attachment to your Norton Commander
> clone and the rest of your environment isn't really a valid
> basis for deciding the source code control system for a
> worldwide project, any more than your liking Visual Studio
> would be a valid basis for demanding that everyone abandon
> Makefiles.

You can just go back into your zealot's spider hole now. You want
to suggest something that makes Windows -- the largest target for
Ruby developers -- a second-class or third-class citizen to the
rest of Ruby, you've got nothing valuable to say. By the way, I'm
the person in the company I work for who is responsible for
making the Makefiles which build our Unix platform utilities.
It's rather annoying to have to deal with VS build scripts on one
platform and make on the other. They both have advantages and
they both *suck*.

(That said, VS.NET 2005 is doing something with its source
control that, frankly, *all* source control tools should do:
making it available as a web service.)

If there isn't a *native* port of a tool, then there's no support
for that tool on the platform in question. Your pretty little
arch replacement doesn't cut it until there's a native Windows
port. You're welcome to do it; I don't have a need for it.

Just because you're a moronic zealot who equates the above stance
with zealotry of my own doesn't make you right. It makes you dead
wrong.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * [e-mail]
               * Alternate: [e-mail]