

What is the point of gists? - Myrmornis
http://pastebin.com/EVZUUmaW

======
nanofortnight
My use of gists is pretty much the same as your present use of pastebin.

* Writing long texts to link back to. Bonus is they're editable.

* Giving short snippets of code or log files.

* Linking to a short amount of text and a couple of pictures. Unlike pastebin you can include diagrams and such in your text.

I have also used gists to host full (but short) programs or libraries, but
that is usually as a response to a question on IRC or over Twitter.

~~~
bradleyland
Gists are forkable too. Gists are very useful for getting input on small
snippets of code the might not otherwise be accessible to everyone being asked
to provide feedback.

~~~
Myrmornis
Why not use a regular git repo? Why do we need two species of git repo?

~~~
bradleyland
Gists are quick and dirty. When I use a Gist, I don't need a full repo. A full
repo could do the job, but it'd be like hauling groceries in the back of a
dump truck.

Why do we "need" them? We don't, but they're nice to have. I have all sorts of
things in my life that aren't needs, but I'm still glad I have them.

~~~
Myrmornis
What is it about a full repo that makes you think it is heavyweight for the
task?

~~~
garblegarble
Not the original poster but from my perspective it's the lack of tools in
github to manage the proliferation of repos. I'd like to categorise them when
I'm browsing my own repos and expose those tags to other people: my
hairbrained experiment repos, my serious OSS efforts, my fork-to-keep-a-
stable-version-of-some-remote-project repos...

I could do something like that by creating a load of organisations but it'd be
nice if there was a simpler way. Gists provide a very primitive way to divide
things up, but at least it's something!

~~~
Myrmornis
Yes, that's a good point. Although gists too is a flat list I think. But at
least with gists and repos we have two flat lists.

------
nodata
Ironically could have been posted as a gist.

------
numberwhun
I tend to use gists as a sort of snippets library (of sorts). I always have
bits of useful code that I am going to need again at some time and having
something like a gist is quite handy.

~~~
Myrmornis
Yes, personally I use a single "miscellaneous" repo for this purpose. Do you
not find that, when working on one of those snippets, you want to commit your
changes (in your present command line environment)? Copying and pasting into a
web browser doesn't seem an attractive way to commit. I'd be interested to
hear what your workflow is.

------
heinrich5991
My IP is blocked at pastebin, can someone paste the text here, please?

~~~
vitorbaptistaa
The text is:

"I use git and github a lot and have very few complaints, and yet I have
failed to see the use of gists.

\- What is wrong with standard repo + README? \- No way of converting a
standard repo into a "gist" repo.

When I work on a code project, even some random one-off script, I track its
evolution in a git repo. So if it doesn't naturally belong in an existing
repo, I create a new repo. As soon as I have something that I don't want to
lose, I'll make an initial commit. The commands involved are near
instantaneous and they bring huge benefits.

Now, I want to share this script. Can I turn my repo into a gist? No, I don't
believe so.

So what is the workflow?

1\. Start work 2\. Get to a point you want to share with others, without ever
having committed 3\. Use web UI to create gist 4\. Paste work into gist and
save 5\. Edit, paste, iterate

or

1\. Decide to start project 2\. Use web UI to create gist 3\. Clone gist repo
4\. Rename it so it's not just a large integer 5\. Start work 6\. Commit and
push gist to remote

I don't hear much criticism of gists so hopefully I am missing something. But
at the moment it seems to me that if you want history, use a normal git repo.
And if you don't want history, use a paste buffer with no versioning features"

