3 ms·

The point is this CLI is providing value. Do you disagree?

• clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  I agree. It provides value. If it provides value then why are people against it? Every thread about Microsoft has some knee jerk low effort post about embrace extend extinguish.
  • EamonnMR 7y ago
    If it provides value but leads to vendor lock-in it's still not a good thing. Additionally, I think that Git's CLI is fine and there's no reason to put training wheels on it.
    • caymanjim 7y ago
      This is a CLI for GitHub, not for Git. All the examples are about manipulating issues and pull requests, which are both concepts that do not exist at all in Git. That's the value add of GitHub.
  • tripzilch 7y ago
    Such posts are not "knee jerk low effort". I had very much the same worries when I read this, and I think those are very legitimate worries, worthy of discussion. It used to be FUD and sometimes knee jerk, until it becomes SOP and "why is anybody surprised by this". In between those stages there are moments where you can ask "is this where we want to go". Maybe a better question to ask than "are they doing this for vendor lock-in", is "will this allow them to make a decision to easily increase vendor lock-in" (in which case business forces will make that decision). It doesn't really matter what the motivation is, after all, a corporation doesn't have memory for good intentions.
• m463 7y ago
  Is it value that extends git into a vendor specific solution?