Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

blog.bitbucket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 113 posts

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#43

Post by pooriaazimi »

pnathan wrote: post #28

I have ST on my Mac. It's a pretty beefy machine - i7, 4gb of ram. And it runs like a lazy dog in a hot August day in North Carolina, i.e., very slowly. I really wish it'd be sped up and I sincerely hope that the Windows version is massively faster.

I have a slow, old MBP (2.53 C2D), and it's very fast, even on big repos (like Sinatra). So maybe your settings are wrong, or something. It's worth investigating if you use ST regularly IMO :)

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#44

Post by mountaineer »

phormula wrote: post #42

I prefer to use TortoiseGit. I dont know why ont would want to open a gui client, I prefer the commands integrated nicely into the shell

Can you stage and commit hunks in TortoiseGit? I never knew of this wonderful feature of Git until using SourceTree. SourceTree opened up the power of Git for me, in particular the stage, and more control over commits.

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#45

Post by rz2k »

darklajid wrote: post #29
porker wrote: post #4

Bugger. Windows 7+. I've had Windows 7 sitting on the shelf since the day it launched, but haven't get got round to installing it...

So.. You're either running Vista (and I really doubt that, because the upgrade to 7 is more or less straight forward, you'd have done it a long time ago) or the long dead, end of life, unsupported, zombie OS called Windows XP. Which is fine. But shouldn't you _expect_ being left out by now? XP came out in 2001 (hazy memory, quoting Wikipedia). OS X (10.0, Cheetah) came out the same year. What's the minimum requiremen…

To be fair, SP3 was released in mid 2008, 7 wasn't released until late 2009, and XP had a greater usage share than 7 (and Vista combined) until early 2011.

It is a sensible decision to only target Windows 7+, and the only reason to stick with XP would be specific compatibility with older programs, but it is a stretch to dismiss XP as a product that came out a decade ago when it still has an enormous market share.

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#46

Post by sjstreeting »

mountaineer wrote: post #35

I installed it a couple weeks ago, and I would not recommend this yet. I have appreciated the frequent and easy update process during the beta. But, wow, still a long ways to go performance-wise. In the working copy view, where I spend the most time in ST, most clicks take seconds to respond. I'm optimistic it improves, I've been a fan of the Mac version for a while.

Please could you give us some details about your circumstances & repo at https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/SRCTREEWIN ? I test with quite a few repos and your performance experience with the Win beta is unusual - viewing files in the working copy should usually average well under a second. Do you have very large diffs for example? Info about the repo you are testing with would be very useful, especially if it's public. The Mac version of ST went through a lot of tuning over the years so we'll probably have a bunch to do on Windows too, your assistance would be welcome :)

Steve Streeting, SourceTree dev @ Atlassian

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#47

Post by manojlds »

phormula wrote: post #42

I prefer to use TortoiseGit. I dont know why ont would want to open a gui client, I prefer the commands integrated nicely into the shell

TortoiseGit completely abstracts away the concept of index. Great for those moving from TortoiseSVN. Horrible for git users.

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#48

Post by sjstreeting »

pnathan wrote: post #36
Tomdarkness wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use ST frequently on OSX and can't say I've personally encountered any slowness. Are there any specific actions you find slow?

Pretty much everything. Slow to load, slow to refresh, slow dialog boxes. Other stuff on my system is quite fast.

The usual reason for slowness on OS X is one of the following:

1. Lack of HDD space (10%+ is benchmark to keep OS X's dynamic defrag happy) 2. Low memory - ST has to launch git & hg binaries and low memory affects those tasks especially 3. Running Mercurial on the App Store version on 10.8 - this is a little esoteric but it's down to Python precompilation and slight differences in versions. You can resolve that by using the system Mercurial instead of the embedded one for now.

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#49

Post by arafalov »

aviraldg wrote: post #20
twodayslate wrote: post #12

I'm pretty new at git and only use github. Why should I use this over the official github client? The official app is pretty easy to use and makes sense to me.

The official Github client is severely crippled and allows you to do little more than clone repos and make commits. This is a full-blown Git client.

And Windows Github client feels really strange, even comparing to Mac's one. Like, I am expected to be, a degree of magnitude dumber or something. Which would be fine, if I did not switch between Windows and Mac every day (Work/home) and got a shock every time...

Re: Introducing SourceTree for Windows – a free desktop client for Git

#50

Post by darklajid »

rz2k wrote: post #45
darklajid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So.. You're either running Vista (and I really doubt that, because the upgrade to 7 is more or less straight forward, you'd have done it a long time ago) or the long dead, end of life, unsupported, zombie OS called Windows XP. Which is fine. But shouldn't you _expect_ being left out by now? XP came out in 2001 (hazy memory, quoting Wikipedia). OS X (10.0, Cheetah) came out the same year. What's the minimum requiremen…

To be fair, SP3 was released in mid 2008, 7 wasn't released until late 2009, and XP had a greater usage share than 7 (and Vista combined) until early 2011. It is a sensible decision to only target Windows 7+, and the only reason to stick with XP would be specific compatibility with older programs, but it is a stretch to dismiss XP as a product that came out a decade ago when it still has an enormous market share.

I agree. And I still don't know if he runs XP at all, of course.

But being turned off by the '3+ years old OS' requirement is .. just odd.

Post reply on HN