Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

gitkraken.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#111

Post by chei0aiV »

swisspol wrote: post #100
Vlaix wrote: post #76

Serious question, never used a git GUI in my life, is there a practical point to it ? I just can't see myself doing it without zsh, my nested .dotfiles, fasd and so on. And worst case scenario, I can always git them back.

Believe or not, there are a number of cases where you can work faster in a GUI than the CLI: many operations on the topology of the repo for instance. See somes examples at http://gitup.co/ . Disclaimer: I made GitUp for that very reason ;)

Looks awesome, any chance of a port to Linux? Perhaps via GNUStep?

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#112

Post by moneypenny »

bengotow wrote: post #39
lallysingh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I don't know when this happened, but that's become a deal breaker for me. Strange, right? Edit to add: It's particularly strange because I wouldn't depend on this tool in some infrastructural way -- I could switch clients anytime without any lock in. But I'm no longer willing to even try anymore. Odd.

I don't think this is a dealbreaker for 99% of people. I currently use Tower ( https://www.git-tower.com/ ), a closed-source Mac Git client that costs $70. It's beautiful, it speeds up my work day to day, and it's been worth every cent. Open source is great and I spend my days building an open-source mail client, but I have no problem paying for great tools.

Tower: have used for four years, and it's EXCELLENT. I use the CLI, tig and Tower.

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#113

Post by davvid »

duaneb wrote: post #13

Here are the things every git client should have before opening up: 1) side by side comparison—seems like it only has vertical, which means for heavy changes it's basically useless. 2) conflict resolution. 3) search (it seems like gitkraken does this well from the screenshots) 4) Interactive rebasing, the bread and butter of clean git usage. Without the above as a minimum , I might as well just use the git cli all th…

Hi, author of git-cola[1] here, and I completely agree that these features are key. I have a slightly different philosophy implementation-wise, though.

Maybe I'm a unix crank, but I've always tried to keep cola as more of a mediator over individual best-of-breed tools, whenever it made the most sense, rather than re-implementing things that already exist in better forms elsewhere.

For diffs we show inline diffs for interactive staging, one of our uniquely ergonomic features, while also making it extremely easy to launch `git difftool`. difftool itself can be configured to use the best tools for side-by-side diffing, so integrating tightly with it makes for the most cohesive Git experience.

For conflict resolution we defer to `git mergetool`, for the same reason.

With `git cola rebase` it's really easy to reorder lines in a rebase and swap through the pick/squash/fixup/... options using keyboard shortcuts. The advantage is you can't mess up the instruction sheet like you can when using $EDITOR -- cola ensures that the instruction sheet is semantically valid (e.g. "pick" must be first) and does not allow the user to create an invalid instruction sheet. Those little things make a big difference for usability.

What you didn't mention, though is one of the most important aspects to me: A Keyboard-Centric Design

I am a heavy vim/gvim user. I use the keyboard for everything, so cola is designed to augment the command-line experience. If you want to find some string in your codebase run:

    $ git cola grep foo  # or ctrl-g foo in cola
    # hit enter
    # navigate results using vim-style hjkl keys
    # hit enter
    # you are now in foo_bar.c at that exact line of code,
    # in your favorite $EDITOR
Being able to do the most common operations, without touching a mouse, is one of my guiding design goals. Hopefully I'm not the only one that feels this way.

[1] https://github.com/git-cola/git-cola

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#115

Post by ianamartin »

duaneb wrote: post #11
gusmd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually have programmers who don't want to get involved with git...

> We actually have programmers who don't want to get involved with git... What do they prefer? Zip files, or something with a slightly different interface but equivalent complexity (e.g. mercurial) ?

Well, to be fair, I'm not really that much of a fan of even saving files. I think that real programmers ought to remember.

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#116

Post by kuschku »

abiox wrote: post #96
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #66

PSA: Writing desktop apps in node.js and bundling a portable instance of Chromium to view them is not a sane thing to do.

i take it you're not a fan of electron.

There are people who don't like using 200MB of RAM for a git client, plus 200MB per browser tab, plus the few gigabytes for their IDE, etc...

Because very quickly you reach a point where 10GB RAM are not enough — I know, I've had that very issue.

Replaced every electron app with a native or Java alternative, now I can actually work without swapping.

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#117

Post by mostafaberg »

I personally never use GUI clients for git, the CLI does exactly what it's supposed to do, efficiently, quickly in a stable reproducible manner, most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly.

But some tips for your project: 1-Lose the forced email registration 2-Easy on the Luxury, we're devs not divas 3-The beta agreement is just way too scary to take the product seriously, examples:

>Company grants Recipient a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the GitKraken (“Product”) for a period designated by the Company for the purpose of testing and evaluating the Product.

>This Product is a beta release offering and is not at the level of performance of a commercially available product offering. The Product may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first commercial release, or at Company’s option may not be released commercially in the future.

How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products ? I'm not trying to sound harsh, this is just my views and I think I've got a point right?

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#118

Post by rakoo »

__david__ wrote: post #54
bengotow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a dealbreaker for 99% of people. I currently use Tower ( https://www.git-tower.com/ ), a closed-source Mac Git client that costs $70. It's beautiful, it speeds up my work day to day, and it's been worth every cent. Open source is great and I spend my days building an open-source mail client, but I have no problem paying for great tools.

As a long time git command line user, I've played with different GUI clients, but I don't see where it would speed me up (and in fact, they seem to just slow me down). What about it helps you in your day to day coding? Do you interact with git exclusively through a GUI, or do you use some mix of command line and GUI?

I used to be a cli proponent and it worked very well for moderately sized, hardly dynamic repos; for other repos that can see dozens of commits an hour it's much easier to use a GUI. I use it for easier rebasing and cherry-picking, because I can directly see what I'm taking and where I'm putting it, instead of having to first check the log, then copy the hash, then paste it with the right git incantation.

Sometimes using the mouse really is more powerful; sometimes it is not. It is important to see that it can sometimes be your friend.

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#119

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

mostafaberg wrote: post #117

I personally never use GUI clients for git, the CLI does exactly what it's supposed to do, efficiently, quickly in a stable reproducible manner, most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly. But some tips for your project: 1-Lose the forced email registration 2-Easy on the Luxury, we're devs not divas 3-The beta agreement is just way too scary to take the product seriously, exa…

"most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly"

Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it.

"How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products?"

It's a beta. The T's & C's pretty much translate as "it's a beta". What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way. And pretty much all FLOSS software excuses itself from any kind of warranty too.

Re: GitKraken: git GUI Client for Windows Mac and Linux

#120

Post by dvirsky »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #119
mostafaberg wrote: post #117

I personally never use GUI clients for git, the CLI does exactly what it's supposed to do, efficiently, quickly in a stable reproducible manner, most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly. But some tips for your project: 1-Lose the forced email registration 2-Easy on the Luxury, we're devs not divas 3-The beta agreement is just way too scary to take the product seriously, exa…

"most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly" Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it. "How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products?" It's a beta. The T's & C's pretty much translate as "it's a beta". What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way.…

I use both with git, nothing wrong with that. A GUI client for committing which allows me to better look at diffs and makes selecting files for staging easier, not having to do `git status` all the time; and the command line for everything else - pulls, merges, rebases, cherry picking etc etc.
Post reply on HN