131–140 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better code review than git diff, easy to commit only subset and faster way to view all changes in commits. I'm using GitUp and it's really good although not maintained anymore.
Are you sure it's not maintained anymore? There is still activity on the GitHub repository. Just no new versions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the upside for them to include such toothless yet threatening clauses. It makes them seem a bit juvenile. Like when we had to come up with laws for our make-believe countries for a class project in middle school and we tried to cover our bases with rules like "if you're a bad person doing all bad stuff, you're not allowed to!"
It's pretty clear that those terms are all defined in the context of whatever they might mean under Czech law, which I am not familiar with. Also, those quotes are taken out of context for dramatic effect: You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usa…
However I stand by my criticism that it is not possible to know if you are violating the license or not. I don’t want to have to learn and follow Czech law to use a git client. Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering? How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software?
Compare Microsoft Windows’s license:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U...
It also says you can’t reverse engineer, but it does not obligate you to stop others. It’s section about online service is a little bit more explicit about what is not allowed. There are no other requirements to follow every law of a particular jurisdiction while using the software.
Ok - I haven't read all the comments here; maybe it's been asked and answered, but I'm going to ask anyhow: Is there something like this available for Linux? Even if you have to pay for it? IntelliJ covers most use cases, and I already pay for that, but I have been wanting to move away from it, and I am one of those few who do not like to use the cli much for git, unless there's no other choice (sometimes, that's the…
I personally prefer separate wrappers for different git commands for two reasons:
1. I like how the modular nature of git encourages me to think.
2. I'd rather not leave my shell just to use git.
As a plus, `forgit` integrates well with `diff-so-fancy`[5] (amazing-looking diffs), `bat`, and `emoji-cli`.
[0]: https://github.com/jonas/tig
[1]: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit
[2]: https://github.com/git-cola/git-cola
[3]: https://github.com/wfxr/forgit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either quotes have been deliberately taken out of context, or the author has updated the license. It now reads: By using this Software or storing this program or parts of it on a computer hard drive (or other media), you are agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You represent and warrant that you will not violate any of the requirements of this Agreement and further represent and warrant…
Does that seem like a reasonable license to you? Admittedly, it doesn't matter, because these authors don't have the resources to hire lawyers from abroad, but all this stuff about "illegal activity"? This is a git client. It gives us no functionality that does not already exist in git. What am I going to do, rob a convenience store with it? Why would the author care if I did? Why are the terms more onerous than thos…
This is more generally phrased than the very lawyer-written EULAs you generally find, but it's not unreasonable or unprecedented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sourcetree is provided by Atlassian, a large well-known company. Fork is made by one person. Not making any assumptions here, but if you're evaluating risks around compromises in one of the two products, I think Fork is higher risk.
Moreover, the business model of Sourcetree is somehow clear: attract users to BitBucket, and, hence, to Atlassian. The business model of Fork is unknown, so to me it's a clear no-no. Can't afford to put a tool in my workflow not knowing if in a few months it will become yet another service I must subscribe to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So essentially: Mac app written with Cocoa/ObjC/Swift and the Windows app written with C# and WPF. A great example of native software. I'd prefer something like Fork over something like GitKraken IMHO. I cannot imagine the performance of some electron alternatives if I were to open a repository with 200k commits, but this can be resolved with shallow cloning. Even if it has lots of Swift frameworks embedded, as soon…
To be clear, I was interpreting the abundance of Swift frameworks as proof of it being written in Swift, not as something bad (a ton of Swift frameworks is still a lot better than Chromium + node + a ton of npm packages) I'm curious why they didn't use Xamarin.Mac though, they could have shared a lot of code between apps.
As someone pretty comfortable with got on the command line, what advantages would a GUI give me? I’m not trolling, it’s an honest question. Anyone with good got command line skills move to something like this and find it offers them a better workflow?
I use a Git GUI, not because it's more efficient or because it enables better workflows, but it's more comfortable for me. - When I'm browsing the history, I can scroll up and down the list of commits and see the diff of each one by clicking on it. - When I'm cherry-picking a commit, I can just drag the commit onto the branch. - When I'm modifying a branch or a remote, I can right-click on it and go to Delete or Rena…
Everything else you described is easily available via already-existing CLI wrappers for git. I described my workflow in another comment[0] here. It is incredibly easy to search for specific commits and branches with instant live-previews using tools like forgit, and these tools are only possible because of the composability of command-line programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either quotes have been deliberately taken out of context, or the author has updated the license. It now reads: By using this Software or storing this program or parts of it on a computer hard drive (or other media), you are agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You represent and warrant that you will not violate any of the requirements of this Agreement and further represent and warrant…
Does that seem like a reasonable license to you? Admittedly, it doesn't matter, because these authors don't have the resources to hire lawyers from abroad, but all this stuff about "illegal activity"? This is a git client. It gives us no functionality that does not already exist in git. What am I going to do, rob a convenience store with it? Why would the author care if I did? Why are the terms more onerous than thos…
Whether it's enforceable, sure, that might be questionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty clear that those terms are all defined in the context of whatever they might mean under Czech law, which I am not familiar with. Also, those quotes are taken out of context for dramatic effect: You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usa…
Whoops, that was pretty silly of me to miss the Czech. However I stand by my criticism that it is not possible to know if you are violating the license or not. I don’t want to have to learn and follow Czech law to use a git client. Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering? How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the applicati…
Surely this applies to anyone using a piece of US-made software living outside the US. And without a governing law clause, isn't it always ambiguous?
Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering?
Who am I to judge. That's what they want.
How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software?
Now that's a good question and the license should be clearer on that.