4 ms·
By interface, I assume you mean git's command-line interface? I agree; it's terrible. My impression is that projects like grit are far enough along that it sho
by davepeck 17y ago
By interface, I assume you mean git's command-line interface? I agree; it's terrible.
My impression is that projects like grit are far enough along that it should be possible to build an entirely new git front-end/porcelain on a clean technology stack. Something with more sane exposure. I don't know if anybody's actually working on something like this right now?
- mbrubeck 17y agoDavid Roundy (author of Darcs, a DVCS that predates git and has one of the nicest command-line interfaces) is working on a git porcelain that has the same user interface and semantics as Darcs: http://github.com/droundy/iolaus http://github.com/droundy/iolaus
- davepeck 17y agoThanks for the pointer -- I played with Darcs back in the day. This looks interesting.
- markkoberlein 17y agoI actually like the command-line interface and prefer it over the GUI interfaces. However, I do prefer the command line for almost everything from managing databases to editing source files in VIM. Git's command-line is a natural fit for that kind of workflow.
- dasil003 17y agoI prefer the command line as well for version control (regardless of flavor), but git's porcelain is pretty horrendous. I think the worst offender is git-checkout, which can switch branches, detach from a branch entirely, or just update the working copy of a file with a different revision. However despite the power and complexity of git's interface I find I better understand and feel more comfortable with git after one year of daily use than I ever was with subversion and cvs even after a decade.