

Tower 2 Git client is coming - hihat
http://www.git-tower.com/tower2

======
paozac
I find this gitx fork pretty good, and it's GPL:

[http://rowanj.github.io/gitx/](http://rowanj.github.io/gitx/)

~~~
brettskiii
Yeah I use this one as well. Tower has more eye candy, but I find that
confusing, this is simple and does the trick really well

------
james33
I've been a big fan of GitHub for Mac since it first launched, and it still
gets regular updates. It won't be easy to convince me to switch, but I'm all
for improving tools that are such a big part of the workflow.

------
nailer
Does Tower have interactive rebase these days? I'm mainly using SourceTree
right now since I don't miss out on anything from the command line version.

~~~
brbcoding
Same here, but SourceTree just seems to get so slow after a fair amount of
use.

~~~
notduncansmith
Is there a reason to use SourceTree a lot? I only fire up Source Tree when I'm
feeling too lazy to compose a search command from the terminal. Of course,
`git log | grep phrase` usually does the trick but if I need anything fancier
(date ranges, for instance) I'll just fire up ST.

~~~
brbcoding
I use it mostly for the graphs... We work between a ton of branches and it's
nice to see the visualization. Also, it's a lot faster when I have to push
multiple branches to multiple repos (looking through 2 remotes with 7 branches
each right now).

~~~
lttlrck
what does its visualization offer that gitk --all doesn't?

------
randomblast
I liked the original Tower when it came out, and I paid the £50 or whatever it
was since it was so much better than everything else. I don't know if it can
compete with SourceTree any more though: pretty much all of its advertised new
features are already present in SourceTree, which is free.

~~~
madeofpalk
SourceTree has a nightmare of a UI. I would much rather trade a few features
for a Git client with a solid UI.

I went to just using git on the command line, and the GitHub mac app for doing
commits

~~~
nailer
A bunch of stuff was inconsistent - I think they had three or four styles of
dropdown at one point. They had a massive cleanup in 1.9 though.

------
spacey
How does it compare to SmartGit/Hg?
[http://www.syntevo.com/smartgithg/](http://www.syntevo.com/smartgithg/)

------
Noxchi
Is it available on windows?

~~~
reymundolopez
Sure [https://windows.github.com/](https://windows.github.com/)

~~~
Argorak
Different product and github only.

~~~
jtanderson
What nailer said. Works great on non-GH repos without any complaints, just
maybe non-standard workflows and mentality.

It's actually what I recommend to colleagues who aren't comfortable with git,
but we find it to be better than any other version control or [insert LaTeX
collab startup here] for writing academic articles.

Edit: for clarity.

~~~
robinhoodexe
I'm actually considering to start using latex with git, mostly for my own
notes and papers. I'm in an academic environment.

What are your experience with using latex + git?

~~~
jtanderson
It works quite well, in my case. There is only one pitfall: conflicts. Since
two edits on the same line become a conflict, this can easily cause headaches
unless some sort of agreements or conventions are in place. For somebody
acquainted with git, it's not bad, but typically if somebody doesn't use git,
svn, etc. and they have a conflict, the merge process is far from painless.
The best way to avoid this is simply to add newlines as frequently as
possible, after every sentence as a minimum; also, have some sort of
understanding with your co-authors about who is working on which sections.
This may or may not be easy for you, depending on the technical content of
your writing.

For my own notes and papers, it's great in all the ways that git is supposed
to be: keeps me organized, keeps things backed up (I use BitBucket, free
unlimited collaborators with a .edu address), and makes me feel better because
I have more control over the whole process (as opposed to Dropbox or Google
Drive).

