Talk:Cogito (software)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Advertisement? You think so? I don't even use cogito, just tried to explain why it exists: it has slightly different design goals than core git. (I think it basically achieves them, but that's a value judgement.)

I don't want to get into an edit war, but don't think the annotation is justified. Perhaps you can explain in more detail, or a third person can review the matter and judge whether to delete it?

Comments

Saw this comment added on RC, just popping in to give some feedback. There are some minor proplems with the text as it stands, such as:

"tries to be friendlier" [...] "and more familiar" Both vague and uncited. To keep them in, it needs to say *who* said this, e.g. "the author's goal was for Cognito to be "quote from author"
"keep the Git advantages" - better to list what it can and can't do as simple bullet points, which leaves judgements out of it.

That said, what else can be said about it? Unless there's a lot more you can envisage adding, I'd suggest merging it into another article, or just leaving as an item under List_of_revision_control_software If it's always going to remain as a stub, probably best to delete it. MartinRe 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

past tense?

Seems like this article should be written in past tense, since the project was started in 2005 and abandoned in 2008. Still of historical importance! Fourthark (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]