Legit. Git for humans

#1

Post by andybak » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 12:52 PM UTC

Legit. Git for humans
git-legit.org

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#2

Post by karamazov » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:30 PM UTC

Is this just syntactic sugar?

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#3

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

[deleted]

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#4

Post by arthurbrown » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:40 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

Looks like a set of aliases. Relevant source is here

https://github.com/kennethreitz/legit/blob/develop/legit/cli...

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#5

Post by skrebbel » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:42 PM UTC

They say it's for humans, but then explain the commands in terms of "normal git".

This'd made a lot more sense for me if they explain for what particular workflow it's intended and how to use it as such. With examples and all.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#6

Post by batista » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:44 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I take offense to the "just" and the "sugar".

You making sound like something bad for your health.

An alternative syntax can make:

1) usage simpler 2) multiple step processes turn to one step 3) commands easier to remember 4) less error prone

(or the opposite, depending on the specifics of the new syntax).

So, no, this is not "just syntactic sugar" this is "new syntax", that is: an alternative command line user interface.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#7

Post by orblivion » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:44 PM UTC

I hope the developer thought very carefully about how to handle doing operations starting from unusual states.

"# Switches to branch. Stashes and restores unstaged changes."

I guess I can't think of anything in particular, but I feel like something unexpected could go wrong here.

(I didn't know you could pop a the last stash that was made on a given branch?)

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#8

Post by ryoshu » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

This looks like it would be a nightmare for working with other developers.

Other developer: "I did 'git sprout foo' and made my changes then 'git publish foo'. But now I'm not sure why the foo branch isn't on the public repo." Me: "????"

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#9

Post by alexchamberlain » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:51 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #2

Is this just syntactic sugar?

I'd have to agree. Git is very Unix - simple commands do one simple thing - it doesn't need complicating by opaque commands that do lots of things at once.

Re: Legit. Git for humans

#10

Post by eaurouge » Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 1:51 PM UTC

I understand that Git is a fairly complex utility. But you can accomplish a lot just memorizing about 5 Git commands and what they do. Besides, if you decide to use an abstraction such as this one without understanding the plumbing, what do you do when 'git sync' fails due to conflicts?