6 ms·
SmartGit - A better GUI for Git
- jamesjyu 17y agoMeh, doesn't have anything compelling that would make me switch from gitx + commandline.
- DanHulton 17y agoWell, I do use and love their SmartSVN... I might give this a try.
- mey 17y agoWhat do you like about SmartSVN over TortoiseSVN?
- shin_lao 17y agoThe problem with TortoiseSVN is SVNCache.
- rimantas 17y agoI have used SmartCVS and SmartSVN on Windows, Linux and OS X. Got the same nice interface on each of the systems. TortoiseSVN is Windows only, afaik. I might try SmartGit too, but I doubt I will use it as much as I did SmartSVN—I think I prefer GitX and command line.
- sandGorgon 17y agoIts the only GUI which supports svn+ssh . TortoiseSVN is (was?) extremely clunky in this respect. We host our repository on a Linode slice and our developers work on various OSes. Since it is Java based, it basically runs on Linux, Win, Mac. Anybody know of any other alternative ?
- qcassidy 17y agonot GitSmart?
- tptacek 17y ago"Smart git" is also a lame joke if you're from the UK.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- graywh 17y agoThe name for Git itself was chosen for its meaning in the UK.
- kqr2 17y agohttp://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#Whythe.27git.27name.3F http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitFaq#Whythe.27git.27name.3F Quoting Linus: "I'm an egotistical ###, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'". ('git' is British slang for "pig headed, think they are always correct, argumentative").
- LogicHoleFlaw 17y agoAs seen on /. : "This is a thread for talking about git, not for being one!"
- diN0bot 17y agothe more tools for git the better. it makes for a healthier and broader ecosystem. i notice that you can choose either 1. free 30 day trial 2. pay for license 3. free non-commerical license. what does it mean to not use smartgit commercially? does that mean i can't use smartgit for projects i'm paid to do as a consultant? what about for my startup which currently has 0 revenue? or is this simply "pay for support"?
- michaelneale 17y agoIf it is like the other tools, then the free version has less features.
- michaelneale 17y ago(as in if you don't want to pay for the full licence, it falls back to a subset of features).
- kilian 17y agoI've been waiting for better git GUI tools to get git going amongst friends who are less terminal-happy than I am, so this should definitely help. That being said, I feel perfectly fine with just a terminal.
- dasil003 17y agoI agree on all points except I like a GUI tool for visualization, which I still use gitk for because none of the other tools on OS X even come close to the information density. I'm also somewhat wanting of a better mergetool since I'm a little sketchy with the CLI tools for that, and usually end up merging anything complicated by hand.
- texel 17y agoP4merge is pretty awesome for merging.
- bretthoerner 17y ago"What SmartGit is?" Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah. :(
- Aegean 17y agoSigh the milking of the open source. I wonder how much milk git has left to give to entrepreneurs.
- weaksauce 17y agoIn which sense do you mean it? That they are repackaging someones code and milking them? Or do you mean that git is being abused by people looking to make a profit?
- Aegean 17y agoI mean it in the following way. While it is totally legit and generally a good thing to build a product out of an open source project, I sense that some naive customers of these products give most credit to the product builders rather than the actual developers. For example, git has a totally clever way of hashing, efficient delta storage, signing of code etc. whenever I see a product made out of git I know deep down that someone will think its the product supplier who came up with all the cleverness of it, whereas its usually just a wrapper. Also, there is so much that goes into the git project, that is very valuable, and people charge $50, $70 whatever using all the value of its design over naive users, essentially "centering their business over IP that someone else produced and gave away." To me this is easy money earned, and that's what I am objecting here. Using open source ain't the problem, you gotta create the core business value yourself.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- m0th87 17y agoHow is building on top of an open source product milking it? Isn't this increasing git's exposure? If they didn't want that, they should've used a more restrictive license.
- nkohari 17y agoYou're right, let's stop running apps on Linux, Apache, PHP, Ruby, Python, Rails...
- SandB0x 17y agogitk / git-gui works fine for me whenever I need it.
- gstamp 17y agoDoesn't this just serve as an ad for this company? I'm not sure why it is being upvoted.
- weaksauce 17y agoI would imagine it's because there are not a lot of gui tools to use git. Especially on the mac and most of them are not "full featured." I really like gitx but it doesn't do a lot of the more advanced stuff.
- dasil003 17y agoYeah gitx really bother me. The whole point of git is its amazing power. As much as a nicely designed OS X app makes me feel good, I'm not about to throw out the power of something like gitk and the speed of the command line for basic tasks in exchange for a watered down interface. Even though gitk commits some of the most heinous UI sins on OS X—such as remembering large windows even after switching monitors so that you end up with a box that can not be resized without editing ~/.gitk—it's still head and shoulders above all the native OS X apps I've tried. If a commercial product is good, I'm all for seeing it garner votes on HN.
- weaksauce 17y agoOut of curiosity what features would it take for you to change over to gitx?
- dchest 17y agoRestrictions of GPL prevented people from creating commercial Git GUI programs (see GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html). Did they create their own Git implementation from scratch?
- rcoder 17y agoThe GPL generally doesn't block a proprietary program from calling an open source one via a shell pipe. If it did, most commercial software running on a Linux system would run afoul of the GPL licensing of the core system commands (cp, ls, bash, etc.). Furthermore, there are a number of more liberally-licensed binary-compatible reimplementations of Git available now (Grit and JGit spring to mind) that could be used as an alternate access layer, if you were less concerned with 100% compatibility with the latest Git features.
- dchest 17y agoThis is a difficult question (GPL is difficult!), that's why I referred to GPL FAQ. See this answer: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySys... or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Thanks for pointers to other implementations!
- cdavid 17y agoThey most likely use jgit, since they require a JRE, and jgit is under the BSD.
- johnthedebs 17y agoI've been looking for something like this for a while now - it's difficult to convince people that Git is worthwhile when there isn't a complete GUI for it. This is cross-platform too! This looks like a serious contender to GitX, which I've been using for a few months. The widgets obviously aren't native (I'm on OS X), but they're certainly passable. Plus, they seem to have a good idea about usability.
- rane 17y agoI exited the installer after it seemed like it wanted to overwrite my ~/.gitconfig :[
- jdelsman 17y agoUm, sorry, but no one needs another Git GUI for Windows. How about a beautiful one for OS X, like Versions or Cornerstone?