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

Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

gitbox.pierlis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#31

Post by sh1mmer »

viraptor wrote: post #22
p3ll0n wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to learn git, open a terminal and read the man pages, create a dummy repository, push changes to it, pull from it, clone it, merge it, etc. Don't start with something like Gitbox because its hides all the details and more importantly the beauty and elegance of git.

I think that's the point of the project - to hide the details. I'm a developer of project X, but a user of git. I don't care about it - I want to see it as little as possible, because it's just another tool. Whether it's beautiful or not, I've got a work to do. It's a bit like with the compiler: it can be pretty and all, but ultimately I just want to write `make` and get my binary. When I need the details, I know whe…

I think the argument here is that

a) basic Git isn't that complex b) Learning a dumbed down subset of Git won't help you long term

I would say that giving people a gentle introduction to stuff is great, but it's important to make sure that it is a launch-pad for really learning the tool properly in the future.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#32

Post by sh1mmer »

viraptor wrote: post #22
p3ll0n wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to learn git, open a terminal and read the man pages, create a dummy repository, push changes to it, pull from it, clone it, merge it, etc. Don't start with something like Gitbox because its hides all the details and more importantly the beauty and elegance of git.

I think that's the point of the project - to hide the details. I'm a developer of project X, but a user of git. I don't care about it - I want to see it as little as possible, because it's just another tool. Whether it's beautiful or not, I've got a work to do. It's a bit like with the compiler: it can be pretty and all, but ultimately I just want to write `make` and get my binary. When I need the details, I know whe…

I think the argument here is that

a) basic Git isn't that complex b) Learning a dumbed down subset of Git won't help you long term

I would say that giving people a gentle introduction to stuff is great, but it's important to make sure that it is a launch-pad for really learning the tool properly in the future.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#33

Post by wolfish »

harpastum wrote: post #5

I think it's very possible that these pretty wrappers allow people to hobble along with little to no understanding of how git actually works. If that's the only way that you'll use version control, it's better than nothing. On the other hand, I heartily endorse actually learning how the git model works -- it's not too bad, I promise! . Good places to start: [1] Peepcode's "Git Internals" PDF - $9 - short, sweet, to t…

I find that committing parts of a file in GitX is much easier than using interactive mode in the terminal. That's not a question of understanding the git model, it's just choosing the best tool for the job.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#35

Post by piramida »

nailer wrote: post #28
piramida wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, git is not a consumer software. Developer should spend some time and learn 5 commands to be productive. But I find this interface interesting, even knowing all command line git this makes browsing history for reviews easy, nice tool.

>> a lot of popular Unix-originated software seems to have really high learning curves >git is not a consumer software I don't understand. What does being consumer software or not have to do with learning curves? Do you think developers don't appreciate simplicity or discoverability?

The more time is spent learning something, the better you can use it later. For consumer software, getting stuff done right now without any prior education is important. For developer tools, learning your tools is a necessity to perform the task better.

If you hide complexity behind a pretty UI, you end up with broken projects when something unexpected happens during push to production and nobody on your team spent time reading the manuals. So what I'm saying, I guess, is that steep learning curve for real tools is a good practice which should not be avoided. You don't want to be operating a chainsaw without reading the manual first.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#36

Post by mechanical_fish »

harpastum wrote: post #5

I think it's very possible that these pretty wrappers allow people to hobble along with little to no understanding of how git actually works. If that's the only way that you'll use version control, it's better than nothing. On the other hand, I heartily endorse actually learning how the git model works -- it's not too bad, I promise! . Good places to start: [1] Peepcode's "Git Internals" PDF - $9 - short, sweet, to t…

Do not underestimate the potential usefulness of a git utility that lets people do a couple of basic operations on a git repo while teaching them nothing. I know lots and lots of people who have no desire to learn version control but who need to interact with a VCS.

But I think I understand where you're coming from. My take is that all of these supposedly-simpler interfaces are nowhere near radical enough. If you try to make git easier by deleting half the feature set you end up with Emasculated Git. It's still obviously git, but it isn't git, so (e.g.) you ask your friend how to use git and they tell you ten things, half of which you can't do because the tool doesn't support them. Or you consult a git book and it seems both familiar and unfamiliar.

What I wish someone would try is designing a tool that has, say, 5% of Git's features, and a different name, but uses Git's protocols to interact with Git repos. The user presses a button to download a project from a URL. They tinker. Occasionally they press a button which saves a milestone copy of their directory tree. They can optionally give milestones names. With another button, they can send their milestones to a server in the cloud. They can also browse the cloud looking for other people's milestones and fetch those. They can see the diffs between two milestones. And there probably needs to be a tool to help merge a set of changes into a directory, which can then be saved as yet another milestone.

Think: "what would Git look like if Apple designed it?" The result is probably not a tool that a hacker would use directly. But I would hand it to all my non-hacker colleagues in the hope of capturing their work in a repo which I could then pull, sort out, and merge into the main tree. And it would let them browse the history and pull stuff out of it without having to bother someone like me.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#37

Post by nailer »

piramida wrote: post #35
nailer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> a lot of popular Unix-originated software seems to have really high learning curves >git is not a consumer software I don't understand. What does being consumer software or not have to do with learning curves? Do you think developers don't appreciate simplicity or discoverability?

The more time is spent learning something, the better you can use it later. For consumer software, getting stuff done right now without any prior education is important. For developer tools, learning your tools is a necessity to perform the task better. If you hide complexity behind a pretty UI, you end up with broken projects when something unexpected happens during push to production and nobody on your team spent t…

Why do you think a command line interface helps learning more than a GUI one?

In your own language, isn't a CLI simply hiding an API in much the same way a GUI one is?

I used to teach people Linux Volume Management. Far more people understood what they were doing with a visual aid - either in, or outside the app - than those who ran the commands without any context to what was actually happening.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#38

Post by p3ll0n »

thethimble wrote: post #4

It seems to me that a lot of popular Unix-originated software seems to have really high learning curves (Vim comes to mind). I wish projects like git spent more efforts on things like GUIs. Does anybody know of any Linux alternatives?

My feeling is that people's strong preference for one interface and stern rejection to the other (GUI vs. CLI) are sometimes more psychological than technical.

The truth, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. CLI and GUI are essentially complementary modes of interacting with the computer. CLI is generally easier if you can remember the commands and the options, which is the case if you use them a lot. If you don't use certain functions a lot, a nice GUI (like Gitbox) can help you find them quickly. Of course whenever you have to repeat a command many times you should automate the process by writing a script, but in theory you could link that script to a button or menu item in a GUI. It doesn't have to stay at the command line.

Re: Gitbox - Everyday git [Mac OS X] interface for human beings

#39

Post by schacon »

viraptor wrote: post #22
p3ll0n wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to learn git, open a terminal and read the man pages, create a dummy repository, push changes to it, pull from it, clone it, merge it, etc. Don't start with something like Gitbox because its hides all the details and more importantly the beauty and elegance of git.

I think that's the point of the project - to hide the details. I'm a developer of project X, but a user of git. I don't care about it - I want to see it as little as possible, because it's just another tool. Whether it's beautiful or not, I've got a work to do. It's a bit like with the compiler: it can be pretty and all, but ultimately I just want to write `make` and get my binary. When I need the details, I know whe…

I would argue that your SCM tool should be less like a compiler that just needs to get out of your way and just do it's job how you expect it and more like a text editor. Do you use emacs or vim, which have learning curves but are powerful and help you ultimately do your job much better and more efficiently? Or do you use Notepad, which just edits text and who cares? I think most developers prefer Emacs or Vim or even an IDE. You invest time in a more complex tool so that you can be a better developer.

That being said, I think this will be useful for a lot of less-techy designers or copy-editors or QA people, etc. People who can just open stuff in Notepad because they don't need to craft code.

Post reply on HN