Bravo to the author here for making all that information clear and up-front.
A thousand times this, I always get frustrated that every single product, tool or service has to have a lot of marketing gibberish, catchy slogans, etc., but zero explanations of what problems do they attempt to solve, or what was the motivation to create them.
You usually are required to dig further in the documentation or look for an external reference to understand what's the real purpose behind a product, tool or service.
I actually wrote that tool based on a huge frustration I had going back and forth to the browser, and not being able to work while being agnostic to the services, which felt being a totally broken UX. I have then worked on that tool for a while, used it and refactored it a lot up until I'm happy using it.
All in all, when I'm doing a tool, I'm first doing it for myself (I might invent the DIFY concept, to override the DIY concept )… only then I'm sharing it with others.
for a while now. It might be interesting to compare and contrast your tooling and git-hub - ingy's being straight bash, while a little crazy, makes installation really trivial, but then again yours supports multiple services, but then again who knows whether the different subcommand syntaxes will work better or worse for any particular other user.
(also, lest anybody think this is a veiled complaint, I'm sure ingy's reaction to finding your work exists will be "awesome, the more the merrier" followed by figuring out if you came up with any features he wants to steal ;)
But project/merge requests/gists are things that have a lot of sense to happen in the commandline /instead/ of within the browser. So basically, his solution is more feature complete on the social side, whereas I implemented more the repository interaction side (like creating gists, or fetching a PR).
So for sure he's got a point for portability being a bash script, but still python3 is begining to be widespread enough.
I mean, if debian-stable got it, you can consider it's everywhere…
The PR stuff is so far as I can see complete in git-hub - what do you think you're missing?
(edit: if you meant gists, lots of the people I know already use paste site CLIs that handle that, btw, so to -us- that's more a social feature than the existing functionality is)
I'm not sure I can see a real use for checking out every repo of an organisation (I mean, if you do that with mozilla, you better start before going for a long holiday ), but having it /possible/ is a great thing
So I guess we're pretty much alike, git-repo being strong for being service agnostic, and git-hub being more complete.
Though, in my redesign plan I got for version 2, I have in mind a framework to make it possible to implement service-specific CLI API, while sharing a same core CLI API for the service-agnostic features.
So my hope is that people will like the tool enough to participate in the development and help make the tool more feature complete across the services!
Maybe I wasn't explicit about it, but I did (and do) have one:
New customer with a github org and I want everything from their org so I can have a spelunk through the code while getting up to speed, build out dependency graphs to get a feel for how things interrelate, etc.
In fact, making it possible to script checking out an org's worth of perl repositories and shoving them into an http://p3rl.org/App::opan instance easily was the thing that was painful enough for me to finally install git-hub.
So, yeah, it may not be a common use case but it's actually an essential feature for me. Whether this means you should prioritise stealing it likely depends on how common it is, which I can't answer :)
I couldn't figure out how to use git-repo.
When I figured out which command I have to use to list pull requests for github, it asked me for my ssh key password. I was wondering why it would need my ssh key at all, so I tried -v, but -v did nothing.
Then I gave up.
Also, it lacks tab completion, as far as I can see, while git-hub supports it for bash and zsh. And since the order of the commandline arguments is not fixed (`request list` vs. `request <user>/<repo> list`) it might be actually difficult to add completion.
I'm developing a generic completion generator, which would allow to add completion to existing commands, but it's not able to deal with this dynamic commandline argument order.
What git-repo really offers is a tool that integrates nicely to the git CLI (as `git-something` is also available as `git something`, so git-repo acts per default as `git repo hub…`). And then it autoconfigures the .gitconfig aliases to have the `git hub`, `git lab`, `git moo` you'd want.
So besides the fact that hub is certainly much more mature than my tool, it wouldn't be a tool I'd like to really use.
I think it's best to keep them separated so you know what stuff is coming from hub and what's in vanilla git instead. "git" is already synonymous enough with "GitHub" in many peoples' minds without including GitHub-specific functionality in your mental model of the command line client.
You might see on my github that I do that a lot, I'm being some sort of mercenary of FLOSS projects, as I patch wherever I see a bug or want a new feature without really caring about the "big plan"
Actually, I wrote the tool because deep down I just want to /use/ the tool.
then you watch the code, create a branch:
git checkout -b `bugfix/nasty_one`
poweroff: Need to be root
There's already a tool by this name and they have the same problem.
I hope that if people like the tool, it's going to be easier to find.
Of course, I'm not really obsessed with the name (as anyway the tool is designed so the user does not type git-repo everyday ). So if someone comes up with a name that's great that can be better, I'm all ears!
About the fact that google has that other tool… Well they really are not much projects using it, beyond the google projects, and the tool really is called `repo`, not `git-repo`, so the name clash is not really there.
> (which nobody does, because who remembers the git remote syntax?
I wish we would move on from the "git has good UX" narrative, it's preventing us from actually improving the UX.
But anyway, designing the command line API of my own tool took me enough headaches — and I'm still not 100% satisfied — to understand how hard it is to have a consistent and great UX for something that offer as many features as git does. Though, I'm trying my best to avoid the decade old troll about git's UX (like vs mercurial)…
In the end, what I try to make clear it's that I'm not trying to replace what git does, but cluster a bunch of repository actions tied with some service's API operations.
And I try my best to offer a pleasant UX doing so. But please, help me making it better!
Congratulations for making git-repo, by the way! It looks extremely useful.
Besides that, looks interesting and I will give it a try!
The only issue might be my project being shadowed by google and go, but the more people will like and use the tool I baked with , the more it'll appear on their first page. So it's not really up to me, but up to you all liking it!
And finally, if someone comes with a nicer better name than what I chose (I actually did not spend more than 2.42 minutes on the name when I had to mkdir the project's directory), I might be happy to rename :)
Otherwise, I hope you'll like the tool and send me patches and <3
I will really try it out. Thanks!
I see references to lab and hub, is bitbucket missing?
The issue I have is that I got to implement OAuth2 for bitbucket, because the privatekey scheme offered by bitbucket does not work for a CLI tool use case. So currently, the credentials (login/password) of bitbucket are stored in CLEAR in the configuration file, which really, really sucks…
And some new features (like the snippets) are not implemented in third part python libraries, because most of the libs are old and unmaintained.
Anyway, following some discussions I had with atlassian bitbucket developers, bitbucket (like gitlab) is planning to switch to swagger, which will help automagical generation of client-side feature complete libraries. So I'm planning to level bitbucket feature set as soon as they land the new API.
So I hope it won't be long before all the features will land for the three services!
How about if people simply accepted patches via e-mail, instead of requiring those obnoxious github pull requests?
So pretty soon I hope I'll be able to finish both MR and snippets for gitlab, and finish the tests and merge all that back to git-repo!
I'd probably use hub if I was involved in more projects that didn't have me as the sole developer.