Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Have you tried GitX? What you described seems a bit more like GitX than what GitHub is trying to do here.

When I first fired this up, I made a tarball of one of the repos I'm currently working in (it has uncommitted changes) and started clicking around. I'd do something in the GitHub app, then go back to my bash prompt to see what happened. I was pretty confused when I switched branches and all my changes were gone. Then I went back and read the blog post. It auto-stashes when you switch branches. I also wondered what the heck the "Synchronize" button does, so once again, I referred to the blog post. It performs what they call a "smarter version of pull --rebase && push that reduces merge commits but doesn't rewrite your merges". Oh, really?

At that point I realized that GitHub has done the hard thing. They haven't re-created the git CLI tool in a GUI, they've created something different. They've created a tool that makes Git more accessible. Little things like auto-stashing when you switch branches will confuse git veterans, but it will make Git much easier to grok for newcomers because of the assumptions it makes about your git workflow.

I see great things in this app's future. It's probably not for everyone. If you're a proficient git cli user, and you like it that way, then you're probably best off sticking with what you've got. Maybe explore some of the more traditional Git GUI clients like GitK or GitX, but keep in mind, that's not what this is.

Nothing in your reply addresses my points, so I'm not sure what to answer. Yes, I tried GitX, and I'm not looking for (or using) Git GUI tools. This doesn't make GitHub for Mac less visually cluttered.

I'm mostly discussing GUI trends (as a Mac developer who cares about this stuff), using GitHub as an example (which, as you say, gets job done great, but I say that it can be improved).

You argue that spacing produces clutter, but I completely disagree. Clutter is shoving tons of information together without spacing.

You argue that spacing produces clutter

"You argue"?

Clutter means (let me open the dictionary) "a collection of things lying about in an untidy mass".

I never said only spacing produces clutter. Either I'm not explaining myself clearly or you read something that was not in my comment (this is called a strawman, right?)

I never said you are completely, objectively wrong. I just disagreed with a point.. On that note, I see nothing untidy.

No hostility meant by "you argue". You provided a critique, an argument. I'd open the dictionary... ;)

You disagreed with the point which I never made ("spacing produces clutter"), putting words into my mouth ("you argue").

You mentioned visual clutter, and then your first bullet point was about too much spacing. Clutter--according to the OS X dictionary you cited earlier--refers to a jumble or tangle of items, implying that they are close together. That's the discrepancy he was referring to.

His posts were completely non-hostile, so aren't you overreacting?

You come off as far more angry than is warranted for this conversation.

I didn't mean my reply to be a point by point rebuttal. Your description seemed to match GitX pretty well, so I figured I'd mention it.

The rest of my reply was pointing out how I perceived this to be different than GitX, which was tangential to the point, but I didn't really think a separate reply was required. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks. Yes, me not mentioning that, apart from my GUI nitpicking, the GitHub app seem to be great, may have caused the confusion.

What's the canonical gitx repository these days?

Everyone I know uses a different fork, much to my dismay.

Part of the reason is that the commercial clients have finally eclipsed gitx in power, ease-of-use, and prettiness.

Notably, SourceTree (what mainly use) and Tower (if the incomprehensible one-repo-at-a-time limit isn't a dealbreaker) now compare favorably to gitx in most ways.

So I don't recommend gitx anymore, but from what I hear Gitx (L) is a fairly active and popular fork:


Yup. Thats the currently devd version of gitx. There's been the odd bug hiccup, but those have been fixed and it getting moderate dev work.

Been using that for a few weeks, it's great. I previously used brotherbard's experimental branch from github and he told me about it.

I use GitX for committing and browsing and the command line for the rest. None of the GUIs have blown me away yet, but deep GH integration is a big plus for me so GH for Mac might join my workflow.

That's a pretty telling irony.

Git seems to have broken down the social contracts around forking that kept most opensource projects cohesive. Unless the project has a great deal or inertia, it is difficult to remain the canonical source, and the project effectively disperses.

You're not wrong but I'd say the degree to which it has eliminated forking costs far outweigh the occasional confusion.

If you think about it, this is basically 1) a marketing problem and 2) would be solved instantly should GitHub introduce a better 'network' visualization.

I actually think it's github's fault to begin with:

- Projects should be top-level in the github namespace, not people.

- Forks should live underneath their source project, and should not be top-level projects themselves.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact