The text is: "I use git and github a lot and have very few complaints, and yet I have failed to see the use of gists. - What is wrong with standard repo + REA

The text is: "I use git and github a lot and have very few complaints, and yet I have failed to see the use of gists. - What is wrong with standard repo + README? - No way of converting a standard repo into a "gist" repo. When I work on a code project, even some random one-off script, I track its evolution in a git repo. So if it doesn't naturally belong in an existing repo, I create a new repo. As soon as I have something that I don't want to lose, I'll make an initial commit. The commands involved are near instantaneous and they bring huge benefits. Now, I want to share this script. Can I turn my repo into a gist? No, I don't believe so. So what is the workflow? 1. Start work 2. Get to a point you want to share with others, without ever having committed 3. Use web UI to create gist 4. Paste work into gist and save 5. Edit, paste, iterate or 1. Decide to start project 2. Use web UI to create gist 3. Clone gist repo 4. Rename it so it's not just a large integer 5. Start work 6. Commit and push gist to remote I don't hear much criticism of gists so hopefully I am missing something. But at the moment it seems to me that if you want history, use a normal git repo. And if you don't want history, use a paste buffer with no versioning features"