Re: svn versus git

Andreas Ericsson [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The number in front is octal mode of a file or directory. "blob"
is a file (or symbolic link), "tree" is a directory, all of this
can be found in git(7).

I don't want to come through as rude, but that you can find the explanation
somewhere (and as an old(ish) Unix/git hand you know (or should be able to
guess easily) what it means) doesn't help the _newbie_ confronted with this
gibberish one iota.

I think it would help if we could write out things ls-style though and
I'm all for axing the SHA1 (I don't even think the SHA1 of specific
files of a tree can be *used* for anything), so the above would be

-rw-r--r-- Makefile

which most newbies should grok fairly quickly.

'ls-tree' is a plumbing and existing scripts (not limited to
what are in git.git) use it to extract object names from
arbitrary trees.  It's output format will NOT change.

The honest position to take on "svn list" question is "we do not
have a counterpart for that command".

Now, I happen to think "getting list of all paths in one
particular revision" is not a very useful operation from the end
user's point of view.  One possible use is to get such a list
from multiple revisions and compare them with "comm -3", but
that is obviously useless in the context of git.  You can do
that with "diff --name-status --diff-filter=AD" without doing
ls-tree yourself.

But if "ls $commit" is still interesting at end-user level,
probably we would need a Porcelain to let users do so.

Johannes recently made

	$ git show $commit^{tree}

to do the name-only variant.

If people actually do "ls-tree --name-only" (or ls-tree
--like-ls-l) often, we might want to be even easier:

	$ git show --ls $commit

or even:

	$ git ls $commit

or even:

	[alias] ls = ls-tree --name-only