121–130 of 214 posts
This looks awesome. I really hope that their next move is to create a Windows version, as I haven't yet found a Windows Git GUI that I like.
Two days ago I gave SmartGit a try and don't really see a reason to look back: http://www.syntevo.com/smartgit/
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).
you think the average git user is on windows? http://www.survs.com/WO/WebObjects/Survs.woa/wa/shareResults...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that dogfooding is important, but github employees aren't the target market.
Github employees are the target market, they use Git don't they? What use is developing a windows app that none of the developers will use initially?
Couldn't find that info in either the announcement post, GitHub for Mac page, or the 118 comments so far here, and don't own a Mac so can't try it for myself (still would like to know whether to recommend to other people or not, though).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you think the average git user is on windows? http://www.survs.com/WO/WebObjects/Survs.woa/wa/shareResults...
Narrowing yourself to 'git users' is a silly thing for two reasons: 1) there are many Windows devs out there who require a VCS 1a) ...who will only use a GUI-based VCS (seriously) 2) there are many users of other VCSes (e.g. Subversion) These are big markets waiting to be tapped. The answer is not "don't try if nobody else is tapping them". Hacker News is the last place I expect to hear that!
If someone made an app like Tower but for windows and charged $50-100 for corporate licenses, they could make a killing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, their web app tracks the history and changes of your repo hosted there. It means you see them only after you perform a push. On the announcement they say: > But those things are only great after you've pushed your code to GitHub. With the desktop app you can manage your local repository before pushing changes to github
Git is tracking the changes and history, not GitHub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you think the average git user is on windows? http://www.survs.com/WO/WebObjects/Survs.woa/wa/shareResults...
github should do some os fingerprinting of tcp connections to its servers and they'd be able to tell fairly accurately what most of their customers use.
But I personally think the value in a Windows client would be in bringing new people to github more than satisfying existing users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of like saying that a BMW M5 is just a version of a Ford Fiesta. Both will get you there, but the comfort and enjoyment will be somewhat different.
Ford Fiesta? That might be selling the web app a bit short.
I'm very, very happy that GitHub is doing this — but I also have high expectations and I do expect the app to improve significantly.
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).
Judging by their use of chameleon, and their general UI choices, I think we can expect an iOS client from github as well in the future (using the same codebase as this desktop version). I think that OSX + iOS > Windows users in that regard.
In respect to the Windows question, I wouldn't be surprised to see them ship one in a few months, once they iron out the bugs and determine exactly which set of features a native client needs to provide.
How does this compare to Tower? It's not obvious from the website, but I'm guessing is less fully featured. Anyone with experience with both who can comment?
GitHub.app seems like it's trying to take some of the complexity out of Git for beginners. For example, I'm looking at the "Changes" tab and don't see a distinction between staged and local changes. There's just a "Sync Branch" at the top that presumably does a pull, you don't get to have multiple remotes, just a "primary remote repository". No --rebase on pull, either.
Basically it looks to me like GitHub.app is trying to make common scenarios a lot easier to understand, but you have to go elsewhere for anything even slightly outside the lines. Could be the right tool for getting Git newbies (or even VCS newbies) onto the Git/GitHub wagon, especially for those who don't aspire to ever be Git experts. But heavy Git users, I'm guessing, will not be tempted.