

SmartGit - A better GUI for Git - nym
http://www.syntevo.com/smartgit/index.html

======
bretthoerner
"What SmartGit is?"

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah. :(

------
DanHulton
Well, I _do_ use and love their SmartSVN... I might give this a try.

~~~
mey
What do you like about SmartSVN over TortoiseSVN?

~~~
rimantas
I have used SmartCVS and SmartSVN on Windows, Linux and OS X. Got the same
nice interface on each of the systems. TortoiseSVN is Windows only, afaik. I
might try SmartGit too, but I doubt I will use it as much as I did SmartSVN—I
think I prefer GitX and command line.

------
johnthedebs
I've been looking for something like this for a while now - it's difficult to
convince people that Git is worthwhile when there isn't a complete GUI for it.
This is cross-platform too!

This looks like a serious contender to GitX, which I've been using for a few
months. The widgets obviously aren't native (I'm on OS X), but they're
certainly passable. Plus, they seem to have a good idea about usability.

------
jamesjyu
Meh, doesn't have anything compelling that would make me switch from gitx +
commandline.

------
diN0bot
the more tools for git the better. it makes for a healthier and broader
ecosystem.

i notice that you can choose either 1\. free 30 day trial 2\. pay for license
3\. free non-commerical license.

what does it mean to not use smartgit commercially? does that mean i can't use
smartgit for projects i'm paid to do as a consultant? what about for my
startup which currently has 0 revenue? or is this simply "pay for support"?

~~~
kilian
I've been waiting for better git GUI tools to get git going amongst friends
who are less terminal-happy than I am, so this should definitely help.

That being said, I feel perfectly fine with just a terminal.

~~~
dasil003
I agree on all points except I like a GUI tool for visualization, which I
still use gitk for because none of the other tools on OS X even come close to
the information density.

I'm also somewhat wanting of a better mergetool since I'm a little sketchy
with the CLI tools for that, and usually end up merging anything complicated
by hand.

~~~
texel
P4merge is pretty awesome for merging.

~~~
dasil003
Wow, looks awesome! Thanks for the tip.

------
dchest
Restrictions of GPL prevented people from creating commercial Git GUI programs
(see GPL FAQ <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>). Did they create
their own Git implementation from scratch?

~~~
rcoder
The GPL generally doesn't block a proprietary program from calling an open
source one via a shell pipe. If it did, most commercial software running on a
Linux system would run afoul of the GPL licensing of the core system commands
(cp, ls, bash, etc.).

Furthermore, there are a number of more liberally-licensed binary-compatible
reimplementations of Git available now (Grit and JGit spring to mind) that
could be used as an alternate access layer, if you were less concerned with
100% compatibility with the latest Git features.

~~~
dchest
This is a difficult question (GPL is difficult!), that's why I referred to GPL
FAQ. See this answer: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLInProprietarySys...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem) or <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#MereAggregation>

Thanks for pointers to other implementations!

------
gstamp
Doesn't this just serve as an ad for this company? I'm not sure why it is
being upvoted.

~~~
weaksauce
I would imagine it's because there are not a lot of gui tools to use git.
Especially on the mac and most of them are not "full featured." I really like
gitx but it doesn't do a lot of the more advanced stuff.

~~~
dasil003
Yeah gitx really bother me. The whole point of git is its amazing power. As
much as a nicely designed OS X app makes me feel good, I'm not about to throw
out the power of something like gitk and the speed of the command line for
basic tasks in exchange for a watered down interface.

Even though gitk commits some of the most heinous UI sins on OS X—such as
remembering large windows even after switching monitors so that you end up
with a box that can not be resized without editing ~/.gitk—it's still head and
shoulders above all the native OS X apps I've tried.

If a commercial product is good, I'm all for seeing it garner votes on HN.

~~~
weaksauce
Out of curiosity what features would it take for you to change over to gitx?

------
qcassidy
not GitSmart?

~~~
tptacek
"Smart git" is also a lame joke if you're from the UK.

~~~
graywh
The name for Git itself was chosen for its meaning in the UK.

~~~
kqr2
<http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#Whythe.27git.27name.3F>

_Quoting Linus: "I'm an egotistical ###, and I name all my projects after
myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'"._

 _('git' is British slang for "pig headed, think they are always correct,
argumentative")._

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
As seen on /. : "This is a thread for talking about git, not for being one!"

------
rane
I exited the installer after it seemed like it wanted to overwrite my
~/.gitconfig :[

------
SandB0x
gitk / git-gui works fine for me whenever I need it.

------
Aegean
_Sigh_ the milking of the open source. I wonder how much milk git has left to
give to entrepreneurs.

~~~
weaksauce
In which sense do you mean it? That they are repackaging someones code and
milking them? Or do you mean that git is being abused by people looking to
make a profit?

~~~
Aegean
I mean it in the following way. While it is totally legit and generally a good
thing to build a product out of an open source project, I sense that some
naive customers of these products give most credit to the product builders
rather than the actual developers.

For example, git has a totally clever way of hashing, efficient delta storage,
signing of code etc. whenever I see a product made out of git I know deep down
that someone will think its the product supplier who came up with all the
cleverness of it, whereas its usually just a wrapper.

Also, there is so much that goes into the git project, that is very valuable,
and people charge $50, $70 whatever using all the value of its design over
naive users, essentially "centering their business over IP that someone else
produced and gave away." To me this is easy money earned, and that's what I am
objecting here.

Using open source ain't the problem, you gotta create the core business value
yourself.

