Greg Hurrell

[Greg Hurrell](https://wincent.com/) for Vim and Relay I wouldn't say closely follow, but I just really like the work he puts out there.

I just got TM-style command-T working on my vim setup thanks to wincent, it is a nice implementation: http://wincent.com/products/command-t It was really one of the only things about TM that made me jealous :) Also it taught me about <Leader> which I'd never even heard of before! Great way to keep your personal commands namespaced from stock vim.

For a free, cross-platform (and excellent) alternative to PeepOpen, try Command-T I used to use FuzzyFinder_TextMate, but that's stopped development, and the creator recommends you use Command-T instead. https://wincent.com/products/command-t

In the recent years the booster for me has been the "Command-T" plugin, which makes it super fast to open files. I can _highly_ recommend this plugin, even if it's a bit harder to install than most other Vim plugins. Check out https://wincent.com/products/command-t and http://amix.dk/blog/post/19501#Command-T-for-Vim-an-awesome-plugin

The thing is that git is not supposed to be smart when it comes to merging. https://wincent.com/blog/a-look-back-bram-cohen-vs-linus-torvalds At the end of the article: This is a clearly ambiguous merge and it simply wouldn’t be right for your version control system to try "resolving" it for you. So the strategy is that if there is any doubt you have to manually fix conflicts. This is by design.

I'm trying to work through this lately and finding it hard: findings so far — https://wincent.com/wiki/Modifier_keys Biggest hurdle is finding a clean way to do application-specific overrides, because even if you can get the general case working right, there is a lot of per-app variation.

I always find these essays interesting, not necessarily because I agree with them, but rather because Paul has a very special way of looking at things. [...] being mean makes you stupid. Linus Torvalds is definitely not stupid, but I would not hesitate to call him mean [1]. But you can't deny that he's successful and certainly he's not stupid [2]. Business and open source seem to both center around the same things: creating something people want [3] and surrounding yourself with other smart people. I would imagine that the latter is hard if you're mean - but not impossible. Take Linus or Steve Jobs, none of whom are very nice. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8#t=883 [2] http://www.wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/07/a_look_… [3] http://paulgraham.com/good.html

Installing command-t is fairly easy on windows. Just compile as instructed with latest ruby 1.9 + devkit and replace gvim.exe with the one specified in this page https://wincent.com/comments/6544.

> As for file access, their are numerous plugins for vim that accomplish that. I think they are NerdTree and something else I can't remember? Command-T probably. https://wincent.com/products/command-t

Command-T is a much more maintained version of this, last time I checked: https://wincent.com/products/command-t

Command-T[1] solved this 'problem' for me very nicely. [1]: https://wincent.com/products/command-t

The Command-T plugin [1] was a big help in switching from TextMate to vim. I have no idea how anyone can be productive in vim without it (assuming you're working on a multi-file project). 1. https://wincent.com/products/command-t

With a few Vim plugins, there's nothing left to miss. One of particular note for TextMate users, Command-T: https://wincent.com/products/command-t

Something like the vim command-t plugin (https://wincent.com/products/command-t/) can make filenavigation very fast. That, the already mentioned C-j, C-k, C-h, C-l bindings, nerdtree, and bufexplorer (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=42) and you're set for speedy file navigation. Then when you're comfortable with that there are things like taglist.vim to take advantage of ctags to kick it up a notch further!

Thanks, that Command-T seems promising https://wincent.com/blog/bringing-textmate-style-command-t-to-vim

http://wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/07/git_notes.p… short and sweet: no metadata http://www.newartisans.com/blog_files/diving.into.git.php http://www.simplisticcomplexity.com/2008/03/05/cleanly-migrate-your-su… You used to be able to call "git", no options, it would tell you how many commands it has. "wc" says 140!

I came across this analysis of an old Bram Cohen argument with Linus Torvalds on git philosophy: http://wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/07/a_look_back… I think the relative simplicity and originality of git concepts is fueling the avalanche. Scott Chacon has been doing some cool stuff implementing Git in Ruby (http://github.com/schacon/git-ruby/tree/master) and possibly ActionScript.

Flashback: Discussion of merging 2009: Git: Bram Cohen vs Linus Torvalds http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=505876 which refers to 2007: A look back: Bram Cohen vs Linus Torvalds http://www.wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/07/a_look_… which refers to 2005: Re: Merge with git-pasky II. http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/2153.html Where Linus says: For example, it seems like most SCM people think that merging is about getting the end result of two conflicting patches right. In my opinion, that's the _least_ important part of a merge. Maybe the kernel is very unusual in this, but basically true _conflicts_ are not only rare, but they tend to be things you want a human to look at regardless. The important part of a merge is not how it handles conflicts (which need to be verified by a human anyway if they are at all interesting), but that it should meld the history together right so that you have a new solid base for future merges. In other words, the important part is the _trivial_ part: the naming of the parents, and keeping track of their relationship. Not the clashes. For example, CVS gets this part totally wrong. Sure, it can merge the contents, but it totally ignores the important part, so once you've done a merge, you're pretty much up shit creek wrt any subsequent merges in any other direction. All the other CVS problems pale in comparison. Renames? Just a detail. And it looks like 99% of SCM people seem to think…

I think this post is missing the point entirely. The strength of git has nothing to do with "magically resolving all possible corner cases". That was never the intended purpose of git. To quote Linus himself: > The important part of a merge is not how it handles conflicts (which need to be verified by a human anyway if they are at all interesting), but that it should meld the history together right so that you have a new solid base for future merges. > In other words, the important part is the _trivial_ part: the naming of the parents, and keeping track of their relationship. Not the clashes. http://www.wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/07/a_look_… In other words, there are corner cases where git might fail to resolve conflicts automatically. If git does manage to resolve some obscure corner case on its own, it would be mostly accidental; it's not why git is better than svn. git would still be an awesome tool even if it didn't handle all the obscure corner cases.