8 ms·

That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. I'm a huge fan of SourceTree in general. I for

That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. I'm a huge fan of SourceTree in general. I formerly thought, "why would anyone want to use a GUI for Git? It's just a crutch so you don't have to use the CLI." Then I started actually using SourceTree a bit. I've changed my tune considerably. I think there's great benefit to using a quality GUI for Git now even though you still need to use the CLI. First, I became stuck in this intermediate user hell where I could do all the basic stuff but didn't know the commands or quite how to get it done. SourceTree allows a very good way to get that done right now with the understanding that you just executed a command under the surface. It allows to explore the capabilities of Git a little more than the CLI would and lets you punch over your weight in the meantime. Second, I think having a high quality graphical representation of your Git tree in front of you helps you understand the structure of your tree and enables you to make more informed, better choices on the structure it takes. Third, I like using it for pushes, pulls, and merges simply because this is the one place in Git I tend to make a typo and screw up data. Generally that's no big deal but once in a while you push something really dumb onto the origin remote and then feel really stupid about it. If it's yours one forced push and you're good but if it's collaborative, you can cause someone a major headache. I do wish it were open source so I could rely on it going forward a little more but clearly Atalassian has a decent business model and they view this app as a great tool into it. It even has a nice cataloguing feature where you can throw in your Github and Bitbucket usernames and see all your online repos in a list. I find this nice when needing all my git stuff on a different computer than my primary.

pjmlp 14y ago
> That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. I never had any major issues with my tools.
- ryanaghdam 14y ago
  I bet the biggest issues you lowly Windows folk have are with others being smug.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    The biggest problem I have with OSS fanboys is how they jump to conclusions. I develop software on Windows, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, GNU/Linux, BSD, Android, Windows Phone.
CyberShadow 14y ago
The standard git-gui and gitk tools, bundled with git, are much better than nothing, but at the same time not much to look at compared to some other GUIs. It's a shame that these tools have seen almost no considerable improvement in the last few years, as a good cross-platform GUI bundled with git would certainly be great. Perhaps that is due to the fact that they're written in Tcl/Tk, so the codebase is not easily approachable. I've tried a few third-party GUIs such as SmartGit (now SmartGitHg), git-cola and Git Extensions, but they all lacked in one area or another and drove me back to the standard ones. Looking forward to trying SourceTree.
vor_ 14y ago
> I formerly thought, "why would anyone want to use a GUI for Git? It's just a crutch so you don't have to use the CLI." Honestly, I can't stand Git on the command line and always interact with it through a GUI. I feel like source control in general is unnecessarily complicated, but Git even more so.
- gte910h 14y ago
  The thing to remember about git is that it's a system for making a source control system, not a system itself. No one uses ALL of git, but everyone needs a different subset of the creature.
- bhauer 14y ago
  Agreed. I've often made a point among colleagues that source control, because it's built by programmers for use nearly exclusively by programmers, has enjoyed very little user interface attention through its lifespan. Unlike other applications that have experimented and evolved their user interface relatively rapidly, source control like build tools, is an area where there is little demand for UI improvement (and hence, little value in doing so). Putting aside proprietary and very expensive source control systems, the open source options seem to align to the way we used computers generally in the following decades. 1970s: CVS 1980s: Subversion 1990s: Git (shifting Git to the 1990s even aligns it with the batch of distributed OS research from that era). This is especially reductive and somewhat mean-spirited, but my point is that using Git gives me the feeling of using other types of applications from the 1990s. Source control remains stuck in an era where computer programs appeared to be designed in part to appeal to the curiosity of developers who take pride in mastering complex systems, not for being eminently usable. When I say Git "feels 1990s" a retort is that I am a Git hater and should just use Perforce or some other crummy commercial product. That misses the point. It just feels like a tool from the 1990s, which to be clear, feels a heck of a lot better than a tool from the 1980s. But I live in the 2010s. I want a source control system that does its job and gets out of my way. Again, to be reductive and mean, just like build tools, source control systems are a time-sink that captivate the attention of people who enjoy fussing with tools. It's not that I don't like Git versus its real-world contemporaries, but I want Git + 20 years.
tptacek 14y ago
I'll second this as well; I haven't used SourceTree, for me it's magit mode in Emacs, but having a structured interface to git turned out to be much more useful than an interface to CVS would have been. In particular, it's resulted in much more fine-grained commits and branches for me. Magit is excellent, by the way.
- kindahero 14y ago
  Magit is gem of all.. I think it comes on top a mile to any other gui for git I used so far.
chr1 14y ago
>That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. Tortoise git is pretty good too. I personally would love to be able to use it on linux and mac.
skyebook 14y ago
Looks like there are a few people in the same boat as myself. Was a cli purist but caved on a complicated merge. Actually seeing the commit graph was incredibly helpful. Later on I discovered that Command-Clicking two commits anywhere in the tree showed their full diff. I haven't gone back to the terminal except for the straightforward commit/fetch/branch creation commands. Glad to see that Windows users will be getting some level of access to this gem :)

pjmlp 14y ago

> That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. I never had any major issues with my tools.

ryanaghdam 14y ago
I bet the biggest issues you lowly Windows folk have are with others being smug.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  The biggest problem I have with OSS fanboys is how they jump to conclusions. I develop software on Windows, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, GNU/Linux, BSD, Android, Windows Phone.

CyberShadow 14y ago

The standard git-gui and gitk tools, bundled with git, are much better than nothing, but at the same time not much to look at compared to some other GUIs. It's a shame that these tools have seen almost no considerable improvement in the last few years, as a good cross-platform GUI bundled with git would certainly be great. Perhaps that is due to the fact that they're written in Tcl/Tk, so the codebase is not easily approachable. I've tried a few third-party GUIs such as SmartGit (now SmartGitHg), git-cola and Git Extensions, but they all lacked in one area or another and drove me back to the standard ones. Looking forward to trying SourceTree.

vor_ 14y ago

> I formerly thought, "why would anyone want to use a GUI for Git? It's just a crutch so you don't have to use the CLI." Honestly, I can't stand Git on the command line and always interact with it through a GUI. I feel like source control in general is unnecessarily complicated, but Git even more so.

gte910h 14y ago
The thing to remember about git is that it's a system for making a source control system, not a system itself. No one uses ALL of git, but everyone needs a different subset of the creature.
bhauer 14y ago
Agreed. I've often made a point among colleagues that source control, because it's built by programmers for use nearly exclusively by programmers, has enjoyed very little user interface attention through its lifespan. Unlike other applications that have experimented and evolved their user interface relatively rapidly, source control like build tools, is an area where there is little demand for UI improvement (and hence, little value in doing so). Putting aside proprietary and very expensive source control systems, the open source options seem to align to the way we used computers generally in the following decades. 1970s: CVS 1980s: Subversion 1990s: Git (shifting Git to the 1990s even aligns it with the batch of distributed OS research from that era). This is especially reductive and somewhat mean-spirited, but my point is that using Git gives me the feeling of using other types of applications from the 1990s. Source control remains stuck in an era where computer programs appeared to be designed in part to appeal to the curiosity of developers who take pride in mastering complex systems, not for being eminently usable. When I say Git "feels 1990s" a retort is that I am a Git hater and should just use Perforce or some other crummy commercial product. That misses the point. It just feels like a tool from the 1990s, which to be clear, feels a heck of a lot better than a tool from the 1980s. But I live in the 2010s. I want a source control system that does its job and gets out of my way. Again, to be reductive and mean, just like build tools, source control systems are a time-sink that captivate the attention of people who enjoy fussing with tools. It's not that I don't like Git versus its real-world contemporaries, but I want Git + 20 years.

tptacek 14y ago

I'll second this as well; I haven't used SourceTree, for me it's magit mode in Emacs, but having a structured interface to git turned out to be much more useful than an interface to CVS would have been. In particular, it's resulted in much more fine-grained commits and branches for me. Magit is excellent, by the way.

kindahero 14y ago
Magit is gem of all.. I think it comes on top a mile to any other gui for git I used so far.

chr1 14y ago

>That's good news for Windows users, their development tools really seem to be getting simpler and better lately. Tortoise git is pretty good too. I personally would love to be able to use it on linux and mac.

skyebook 14y ago

Looks like there are a few people in the same boat as myself. Was a cli purist but caved on a complicated merge. Actually seeing the commit graph was incredibly helpful. Later on I discovered that Command-Clicking two commits anywhere in the tree showed their full diff. I haven't gone back to the terminal except for the straightforward commit/fetch/branch creation commands. Glad to see that Windows users will be getting some level of access to this gem :)