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

Build Your Own Git UI for Mac with GitUpKit

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Build Your Own Git UI for Mac with GitUpKit

#11

Post by tenfingers »

zatkin wrote: post #3

> http://gitup.co/images/speed.png I hope no-one here ever has to deal with a tree like this.

In my mind the default git log graph (and most other git UIs) are very poor at rendering the graph itself.

Somehow, even a moderately simple repository which has been heavily co-authored will look like garbage; even though there _are_ two distinct mainlines that you can follow.

One of the best visualizations for revision control, IMHO, is fossil's timeline view:

https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?y=ci

It's clear, compact, and tries to maintain different lineages as straight lines. git tools, by contrast, just shift everything on right.

Not even github's network view is really usable, since the network simplification they perform destroys the locality of the changes.

Re: Build Your Own Git UI for Mac with GitUpKit

#13

Post by jlarocco »

tenfingers wrote: post #11
zatkin wrote: post #3

> http://gitup.co/images/speed.png I hope no-one here ever has to deal with a tree like this.

In my mind the default git log graph (and most other git UIs) are very poor at rendering the graph itself. Somehow, even a moderately simple repository which has been heavily co-authored will look like garbage; even though there _are_ two distinct mainlines that you can follow. One of the best visualizations for revision control, IMHO, is fossil's timeline view: https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?y=ci It'…

I'm a little embarrassed to say I had never heard of Fossil.

At first I didn't like the idea of including a web interface and wiki, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. Having a change log for the wiki would be helpful, and I'm assuming it's zero cost if you don't use it.

Including an integrated bug tracking seems like an ingenious idea, though. Any idea how well it works out on real projects?

Re: Build Your Own Git UI for Mac with GitUpKit

#14

Post by swisspol »

biehl wrote: post #7
swisspol wrote: post #6

I'll be writing a few more sample code in the coming days but you can already see how simple the API is: https://github.com/git-up/GitUp/blob/master/GitDown/AppDeleg... . GitUpKit is a multi-level API design so you can just use exactly what you need from each level depending on how much control you need (e.g. you can use a raw diff rendering view or a ready-to-use full-featured diff view). Happy to answer questions i…

Lovely. My first question as a noob-not-even-osx-developer-yet is why not Swift? (my impression is that it is a quite recent project).

Swift is still very young, constantly evolving, and simply not ready for big projects. Case in point: is there a single Apple app written in Swift yet?

This means that writing GitUp in Swift would be a ton of overhead for very little tangible benefit.

See examples of what well known Mac developers have to go through with Swift: http://inessential.com/swiftdiary. I'd rather spend my time on building the app rather than on dealing with Swift.

Re: Build Your Own Git UI for Mac with GitUpKit

#17

Post by tenfingers »

jlarocco wrote: post #13
tenfingers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind the default git log graph (and most other git UIs) are very poor at rendering the graph itself. Somehow, even a moderately simple repository which has been heavily co-authored will look like garbage; even though there _are_ two distinct mainlines that you can follow. One of the best visualizations for revision control, IMHO, is fossil's timeline view: https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?y=ci It'…

I'm a little embarrassed to say I had never heard of Fossil. At first I didn't like the idea of including a web interface and wiki, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. Having a change log for the wiki would be helpful, and I'm assuming it's zero cost if you don't use it. Including an integrated bug tracking seems like an ingenious idea, though. Any idea how well it works out on real projects?

I cannot comment too much myself, since I only tried it for smaller projects, and nowhere near the amount I gave to hg/git/svn/and others.

That being said, it's not any different from hg/git in terms of cooperation, and more similar to hg in the sense that history is irreversible by default.

But the UI (cli and web) is very well designed. There's nothing to dislike, really. I couldn't care too much about the wiki (IMHO, a better solution is use md documents directly in the source), but the issue tracker solves distributed bug tracking in a very elegant way. Contrast to git/hg, where you have to use third-party or centralized bug tracking with poor integration.

Fossil is used by the sqlite project (and several other hidden gems).

I still find unbelivable that fossil has such a well-designed commit graph and interface, and git (with so many eyeballs looking into it) has nothing similar (and I _do_ know "git show-branch").

Post reply on HN