101–110 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Windows client doesn't make sense when most (all?) Github employees are on Macs. Mac is higher priority than Windows.
Sure, but my point is that most of Github's potential customers are not on Macs.
Mac: Tower, GitX, GitBox, GitHub, Sprout, Gitti, SourceTree ... Windows: TortoiseGit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it only works on github
Correction: It only works with a single 'origin' remote. It should work fine with any smart http git host. Someone in this thread mentioned it working just fine with Assembla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I disagree that windows should freely proliferate. I prefer apps that stay in a single window. I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not against single windows, I'm against making me navigate through screens when it's unnecessary. Also, you should let some of that angst go, because it's clear that Apple is anticipating an iOS experience on the desktop for a long time coming. Apple is anticipating better GUI e…
Fair points, indeed! I can clarify: 1. Floating inspectors drive me bananas unless they can be pinned in the app "wrapper". 2. A new window for every document makes me crazy, because I like to use tools like Witch for doc-level tab switching. 3. The push away toward full screen apps and in-app file management is, IMO, a good thing.
I'm with you here, mostly. iCal's switch from sidebar in 10.4 to popups and floating inspectors in 10.5 is painful. On the other hand, Acorn's floating tools window is good.
2. A new window for every document makes me crazy, because I like to use tools like Witch for doc-level tab switching.
I'm not so into tabs for documents, but can't live without them in browsers.
3. The push away toward full screen apps and in-app file management is, IMO, a good thing.
And yes, and no. It depends, as with other points. I'm glad that now Mac apps are not locked into multiple windows/floating inspectors for everything, but "you have a single window and you can look only at one thing at a time, deal with it" is also not the panacea.
That's cool and all, but a Windows client would make a lot more business sense. There are already a couple of nice git clients for Mac. There aren't for Windows. And I assume github is targeting SMB with its paid offerings. Unless you're a design shop or a hip startup, odds are you're not running OS X. Based on my unscientific data, most companies have the devs working on Windows (or occasionally Linux).
I can honestly say I do not know a single dev who uses windows for development, everyone is on Linux or OSX. My unscientific data is probably as good as yours. So I wouldn't be surprised if they looked at their browser data and realized OSX was a pretty big market.
I'm sorry, but in the world of awesomely-licensed Qt and other cross-platform toolkits, why would you go out of your way to build a native app on Mac libraries and only release it for a single platform? I can understand that OS X probably has the biggest share of GitHub visitors, but git is fully open source, GitHub seem to very much like open source, and in the spirit of that I'd expect a native app that works on as…
Apparently, GitHub chose to do best they can for one platform instead of something that is merely good enough on few platforms.
It stalled after I entered my credentials. It's just been sitting there for 10 minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
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).
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.