161–170 of 248 posts
Please, please don't name your installer 'setup.exe' When I browse to my downloads folder, the most frustrating thing in the world is trying to figure out where 'setup.exe' came from.
I think it's called that way because of some kind of naming convention that Windows expects from installers?
not sure about anyone else around here but this fella http://i.imgur.com/Q3d6N.png has popped up twice for me in the first 5 minutes of setting up.
For those of you looking for a nice Git client for Windows, I suggest checking out TortoiseGit[1]. I can't recommend it enough. It is such a powerful peace of software and I am surprised it is not brought up in discussions more often. http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/
I use TortoiseGit (and was a long time user of TortoiseSVN before that), but I find it to be a poor substitute for the command line. I feel like they tried to make the names of git commands more user friendly, but having already grown accustomed to misnomers like "git checkout" it often takes me a little while to find the right action in TortoiseGit.
I think it is better for TortoiseGit to match the semantics of git rather than match the semantics of TortoiseSVN. It causes some confusion coming from SVN for sure, but once you start using git, you should learn its dialect. It would be worse if TortoiseGit did not match git's vocabulary.
but since this is using your framework, xpaulbettsx, is the source for this going to be available? I always love seeing open source functional applications that use a certain framework or toolkit I'm considering. Makes the divide between reading code/documentation and the end product just seem that whole much closer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would really help you to have a play with command line Git, just to get a feel for what's going on. SSH keys aren't hard to learn and are useful enough to be worth the time spent. By all means switch to using the GUI after.
It's not about being unfamiliar with the CLI, it's that Windows isn't like OSX/Linux in that you can just store your keys in a .ssh folder and be done with it (at least not if you don't use cygwin/msys) The method I chose in Windows was to use pageant (part of Putty) to load the keys. Not sure if I missed this option but you can't autoload keys so when you restart pageant you have to readd the keys (which is not terr…
http://jameschens.com/blog/2010/05/24/starting-pageant-durin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many people there Github = git, so saying github isn't much harder to set up than Git isn't saying much. Using git on Windows has historically not been super fun. The CLI installer mostly works, but it's pretty clunky. Cygwin works fine too, but it's also not especially elegant. At the very least, known of these solutions conform to the expectations of people of the platform. The GUI clients on Windows last I loo…
I don't know what difference the "Github = git" distinction makes, from an oAuth perspective it still seems implicitly obvious to me that completing the signup and adding SSH keys are distinct tasks. As for "CLI installer" (I presume you mean the installer for the CLI git client), and Cygwin, I'm not sure what to say. I've used the Git installer dozens of times without problem, there aren't exactly tons of places for…
Obviously GitHub believe there are people who will benefit from using Git who can't be bothered understanding setting up ssh.
Seems reasonable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what difference the "Github = git" distinction makes, from an oAuth perspective it still seems implicitly obvious to me that completing the signup and adding SSH keys are distinct tasks. As for "CLI installer" (I presume you mean the installer for the CLI git client), and Cygwin, I'm not sure what to say. I've used the Git installer dozens of times without problem, there aren't exactly tons of places for…
Essentially what you're saying is that you understand it; therefore it's simple to understand. Obviously GitHub believe there are people who will benefit from using Git who can't be bothered understanding setting up ssh. Seems reasonable to me.
Haha, maybe another of way of putting things from my perspective, I found keys to be the least of my concerns once I got into projects that really used Git and I have a hard time seeing people be successful with Git if the keygen steps throws them off.
I hope that explains things from a different perspective :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one thing to be scared of the deep inner-workings of OpenSSH (which truly can be scary). It's another thing to be "scared" of ssh-keygen, especially considering it's something that most competent developers will use when managing servers, deploying to Heroku, managing source, etc. "ssh-keygen -t rsa", set a passcode on it, upload the id_rsa.pub and you're done. Demonstrating a lack of understanding of that was w…
I'm surprised that the responses to this amount to, "I don't understand it, don't want to follow instructions and want a two-click GUI". Git isn't magic. To leverage it well, you need to be willing to get down and dirty with the CLI sooner or later. If you're unwilling to learn Git, don't use it. If you're a dev, source control is one of your tools. Learn it or find a tool that holds your hand more. I don't know how…
When seeing other people who have problems and difficulties - one group only feels righteous indignation; while another group sees a business opportunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essentially what you're saying is that you understand it; therefore it's simple to understand. Obviously GitHub believe there are people who will benefit from using Git who can't be bothered understanding setting up ssh. Seems reasonable to me.
I think you're right and I guess that's what I'm beginning to realize. I just kind of assumed that in that case... Git is the wrong tool for their job. If you don't need the "power of Git" (I swear, I'm not in love with Git), then use Dropbox or SVN or something simpler. Seems easier than fighting with keys, and then fighting with git's distributed nature and then fighting with all of the complexities of merging and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Scary crypto stuff"? So you don't understand how PKI works and you're trying to use distributed source control? (I say this not to be a jerk, but because there aren't exactly a wealth of good alternatives given it is a distributed source control mechanism. PKI comes with the territory and an SSH key generation is part of that) GitHub doesn't take any more setup than a standard Git setup takes (well, outside of signi…
> "Scary crypto stuff"? So you don't understand how PKI works and you're trying to use distributed source control? Is this an honest question, or are you alluding to the idea that someone who doesn't understand PKI should not use distributed source control?
Last I checked they[GitHub] made you perform a bunch of scary crypto stuff on your local machine before they'd let you in.
If performing `ssh-keygen` and entering in an (optional) password from a command line constitutes "scary crypto", then maybe Git and GitHub isn't for everyone. Not that anyone needs to know how PKI works, but they might be better off knowing that `ssh-keygen` generates an ssh key pair, a pretty essential component of the `git` workflow.
Maybe that's why SVN is so strong in older development shops. Outside of the effort required to convert an SVN repo to a Git repo, all those developers already have all the tools necessary on their machines (Windows is high on that list) and in many cases inside a VPN like my division we just use WebDAV anyways, completely bypassing the need for SSH Keys in favor of ActiveDirectory.