The applicatino asks you to register with my email address for further 'communications related to GitKraken or Axosoft'. There is no way to skip this step, you have to provide an email address ––and pay attention to 'OR'. No thanks, buddy. First thing I tried is dropping a git repo folder to the window, didn't work. When I click the open button I can see the Javascript animation glitching on my 'Early 2015 i5 2.7 Ghz MacBook Pro'.
The commit list UI is kind of alright but it doesn't show you the diff anywhere. So that's not exactly a Git UI, buddy. And this is not open source either, that's a lot of strikes. Gitup ( for those interested) looks amazing! My team's been using which has been a godsend - many of the same features, including interactive diff staging and tree view, in a native-feeling Mac interface. But that gitup screencast, how it makes rebasing painless - that's like nothing I've seen before.
I'll definitely give gitup a try. In general, these types of interfaces are VERY useful for junior programmers who aren't used to thinking of Git as a digraph of commits. I'm surprised that they're not used more often in online courses and bootcamps. Maybe not enough people know about them yet! Because IMO struggling and learning 'the hard way' first forces people to understand what is actually happening at the git level before using fancy tools like this or Tower to e.g. Rebase master or otherwise do complicated unnecessary things because the tool makes them easy to do and 'it seemed like the right thing'. There are a lot of ways to do git.
If you frequently find yourself needing a GUI tool to do more than compare diffs (there are a few good ones out there), it's very possible that the way you / your team are using git could itself use some work. If you're very new to git on teams or even if you're more intermediate, is probably worth a read to understand how this stuff can work nicely for projects. It really shouldn't be rocket surgery to cut a new release:). I used to be a cli proponent and it worked very well for moderately sized, hardly dynamic repos; for other repos that can see dozens of commits an hour it's much easier to use a GUI.
I use it for easier rebasing and cherry-picking, because I can directly see what I'm taking and where I'm putting it, instead of having to first check the log, then copy the hash, then paste it with the right git incantation. Sometimes using the mouse really is more powerful; sometimes it is not. It is important to see that it can sometimes be your friend. The problem isn't the cost in money, it's the cost in time and inconvenience. It sort of manifests in two ways. First, I build my professional workflow around a tool that can simply cease to exist in a few days/weeks/months/years.it puts me at the mercy of the maker of the tool, often needlessly. Second, software that costs money tends to be closed source, which is at odds with community efforts that can improve and shape the software over time, as well as maintain it should the original developer move on.
So those issues are the problem, not the $70. SourceTree is a god awful nightmare of a UI and I have found myself having to triple check all the checkboxes present before I do anything lest I manage to hose it up. I would use absolutely no GUI if my option was that or SourceTree. I also hear the latest update has been a real punch to the gut for people as well. I branch and merge in moments at least a half dozen times a day in Tower. Getting to diffs, creating patches, and viewing changesets are easy and pleasant to look at. It has built I support for a Gitflow workflow so naming conventions and everything allow for one or two clicks to go from no feature branch to a new one.
Frankly, it's just pleasant to use, doesn't screw up my source, and makes it easy to get my code committed and pushed. It has built I support for a Gitflow workflow So does SourceTree. Have you tried using it? If so, what issues have you found with it? Personally, I don't use it, so I can't speak to its functionality.
I branch and merge in moments at least a half dozen times a day in Tower. I do the same in SourceTree, and find it trivial, but perhaps it's just a usage difference. If you want to use Tower go for it - I have no affiliation with Atlassian to push the product on you, I just enjoy it. I'm just surprised at how much Tower costs. It's funny because I generally regard Atlassian products as at the worst, not bad.
That is to say, I don't feel like anything they do sucks, some things I really like, some things I'm meh about. Except SourceTree. Maybe because I'd been using Tower for nearly a year by the time I came across SourceTree. Maybe because it's such a Windows feeling application. I don't know. I'm sure most of my dislike is illogical at this point, but it still is there. I don't feel like $70 is very much for something that feeds my family.
I use it all day every day and the work I do with it allows my wife to stay home with my kids. If people didn't pay me to build the software that I build, this wouldn't be possible.
It's the same reason I choose IntelliJ over Eclipse or other IDEs. If the price difference is justified by my effctiveness with your tool, I'm spending the money without hesitation.
The only caveat I have is, even if your product is the best, if your company is shifty or a bad actor- I'll do whatever I can to avoid it. Which is weird, seeing as the git license is GPL 2. I mean, I find it weird that one can build a product completely around a GPL project, and somehow not make it GPL. The whole point of the GPL is to restrict derivatives.
Yet, somehow this has been mutated to become 'links to a library,' as if the technical fact that the product links to some code over an API boundary is different, legally speaking, than calling it with arguments over a process boundary. The point of the GPL was supposed to be about derivative products, that is code that depends non-optionally on other code. Whether it depends on that code via linking, calling exec, or sending HTTP requests, it shouldn't be legal to write a non-open-source application that depends on a GPL program to do anything useful. I personally never use GUI clients for git, the CLI does exactly what it's supposed to do, efficiently, quickly in a stable reproducible manner, most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly. But some tips for your project: 1-Lose the forced email registration 2-Easy on the Luxury, we're devs not divas 3-The beta agreement is just way too scary to take the product seriously, examples: Company grants Recipient a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the GitKraken (“Product”) for a period designated by the Company for the purpose of testing and evaluating the Product. This Product is a beta release offering and is not at the level of performance of a commercially available product offering.
The Product may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first commercial release, or at Company’s option may not be released commercially in the future. How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products? I'm not trying to sound harsh, this is just my views and I think I've got a point right?
'most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly' Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it. 'How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products?' The T's & C's pretty much translate as 'it's a beta'. What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way.
And pretty much all FLOSS software excuses itself from any kind of warranty too. Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it. A simple google search for 'How to use git without command line' will show you the amount of people who are looking for just that, I said most, not all, I believe git is a developer tool that's mostly used by dev who can navigate their way around CLI, lately i've seen and worked with non devs who want to just use GUI tools to help them around without having to know the details of what's going under the hood, this submission is a good example of that, it lacks every single tool that a developer that works in a big team with a big codebase needs. So yes, it's a tool for people who don't want to use the CLI properly. Nothing arrogant at all.
It's a beta. The T's & C's pretty much translate as 'it's a beta'. What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way. And pretty much all FLOSS software excuses itself from any kind of warranty too.
This doesn't seem to be exactly a FLOSS per say, but I get your point, they're just doing it the wrong way, if you're gonna start something that you want to be on par with other tools, at least get out your beta with the same features, then add up on that post beta, but they're not doing that, they're releasing a GUI tool that has the basics of git, with videos and js animations. And if i'm going to even consider using that in a production environment I'd rather have a more serious T&C that will make me feel a bit safe that this thing will be supported and will live on for a few years ahead and not die, 'It's just a beta' is something i'm really tired of hearing as an excuse to a crippled product, gmail was in beta for way to long and it was superior to all existing email solutions at the time, no one would've used it if it only supported sending and receiving emails, I wouldn't call his git client a beta either, it's more of an alpha experimental product IMHO. I don't see any complex NSTableView in GitUp, they definitely use something other. When i worked at Telegram, we worked hard to make default lists smooth and it is almost impossible. Eventually main client became Qt-based instead of native frameworks.
All other Git tools also very slow on my MPB Retina. All of them are laggy in lists and only lists. Having nothing good for long lists doesn't matter as rendering pipline on OSX didn't updated for a years. Almost everything in UI on OSX is still software rendered instead of GPU. And Chrome extensively use GPU for rendering and that outperforms everything. Love the interface, dark theme and super intuitive. Could use syntax highlighting in diffs, though.
It will need that feature to convince me to pay money, later. One weird thing: it'd be great to have the option to show a name, instead of a shrunken avatar in the commit log, perhaps configure how this is shown, so I can choose the format of the name and if I want to see an avatar or not. I may be the only one, but seeing a 100+ row long column of just my face (I have worked on a few projects solo) kind of creeps me out. Any idea when the product is going to be ready and how much it will cost? Hi, author of git-cola1 here, and I completely agree that these features are key. I have a slightly different philosophy implementation-wise, though.
Maybe I'm a unix crank, but I've always tried to keep cola as more of a mediator over individual best-of-breed tools, whenever it made the most sense, rather than re-implementing things that already exist in better forms elsewhere. For diffs we show inline diffs for interactive staging, one of our uniquely ergonomic features, while also making it extremely easy to launch `git difftool`. Difftool itself can be configured to use the best tools for side-by-side diffing, so integrating tightly with it makes for the most cohesive Git experience. For conflict resolution we defer to `git mergetool`, for the same reason. With `git cola rebase` it's really easy to reorder lines in a rebase and swap through the pick/squash/fixup/. Options using keyboard shortcuts.
The advantage is you can't mess up the instruction sheet like you can when using $EDITOR - cola ensures that the instruction sheet is semantically valid (e.g. 'pick' must be first) and does not allow the user to create an invalid instruction sheet. Those little things make a big difference for usability. What you didn't mention, though is one of the most important aspects to me: A Keyboard-Centric Design I am a heavy vim/gvim user. I use the keyboard for everything, so cola is designed to augment the command-line experience.
If you want to find some string in your codebase run: $ git cola grep foo # or ctrl-g foo in cola # hit enter # navigate results using vim-style hjkl keys # hit enter # you are now in foobar.c at that exact line of code, # in your favorite $EDITOR Being able to do the most common operations, without touching a mouse, is one of my guiding design goals. Hopefully I'm not the only one that feels this way. If you want to visualize the topology of a nontrivial git history, It's several times better in a gui than as a tree drawn using slashes and pipes in a shell window. Compare a nice graphical tree with something you might get from 'git log -graph -oneline -all' or a similar command. The shell window just isn't up to the task of drawing nice things, just like it doesn't show pictures very nicely by converting them to ascii. If you want to see side-by side diffs that's also a lot better in a nice text editor than in a text window. Getting balloon tooltips when hovering commit hashes hidden in a gutter etc.
Allows more information to be fit onto the screen. The reason you use a graphical UI is because a text ui doesn't fit all the information you want to show in a good way. Most git tools might not need show or draw a large amount of information (push/pull/commit/.) but some do (blame, log -graph for example). I generally do that sort of thing(staging/destaging lines and chunks) in my editor. If I could shift the merge tool stuff into my editor quickly I would do that as well. The reason is that it reduces context switching and difference between environments: sure, I could spend hours making the fonts, colours, and keybindings the same between the git gui and my editor; I could get really good at switching to the window; etc.
But even a slightly worse version of it in the editor is going to be way less work. At least, that's how I see it. Also, I'm sure there must be a PPA or something for gitg on Ubuntu, if you really like the tool.
To be honest, this is actually a good strategy. Producing a poor layout that is. I've found a lot of times, a post either has a lot of comments/votes because the product idea was stupid and/or something unrelated about the product was less than impressive.
So if you are launching a product on Hacker News, it might be worthwhile to create two separate landing pages. Create one that is less than informative/provocative to get the votes/comments and then switch to a more informative one when you have secured a front page position. But bad websites are correlated with bad products: the same incompetents are responsible for both, either directly or indirectly through accepting the work of bad designers and consultants. Personally, I found the fullscreen pointless animations an arrogant abuse of my bandwidth and of my eyes, and the lack of content above and below the fold (and of scrolling and of the fold itself) a powerful source of claustrophobia; I noticed the tiny links to merely bad pages moments before closing the page in anger. Lots of negativity here.
I use SourceTree normally and although I'm a command-line comfortable vim/tmux/fugitive/etc kind-of-guy I've decided I like GUIs for GIT. GitKraken is worth watching IMO. So far I've liked using it (I started trying it at 0.5 and just came back to it now with this 0.8 announcement).
I don't care that it's an Electron app. It seems snappy enough for me.
Isn't Slack on Electron? I have that running all day too. This whole 'it's not open-source anymore' thing kind of sucks though. If this is just gearing up to be a paid application then it's really got to step up to SourceTree. I initially figured it was just the rowdy javascript crowd flexing their muscles and playing with things like Electron and that it would remain open-sourced.
I tried this today. A bit light on features, but it has the most important ones. However, it kept on creating temporary files (copies of the files I staged), and they showed up as stageable files. Very confusing. There also needs to be an option to truncate file paths in the staging area box. Middle truncation that responds to the box width, or an option to only show the file names, because right now file names are just completely unreadable.
Also, there are stage hunk buttons, but no discard hunk buttons. Configurable diff font size too. I'll be still using SourceTree for now (even though they had that catastrophic broken release last week). Performance is a lot better than SourceTree though, which can be a real dog sometimes. It's definitely showing that Electron is a viable choice to make desktop apps.
GitKraken is now part of the Student Developer Pack. Students can manage Git projects in a faster, more user-friendly way with GitKraken’s Git GUI for Windows, Mac, and Linux. GitKraken is a cross-platform GUI for Git that makes Git commands more intuitive. The interface equips you with a visual understanding of branching, merging and your commit history. GitKraken works directly with your repositories with no dependencies—you don’t even need to install Git on your system.
You’ll also get a built-in merge tool with syntax highlighting as well as one-click undo and redo for when you make mistakes. Other features of GitKraken are:. Drag and drop to merge, rebase, reset, push.
Gitkraken Mac Gitkraken For Mac Download
Resizable, easy-to-understand commit graph. File history and blame. View image diffs in app. Fuzzy finder and command palette. Submodules and Gitflow support. Easily clone, add remotes, and open pull requests in app. Keyboard shortcuts.
Dark and light color themes. GitHub integration Members of the pack get GitKraken Pro free for one year. With GitKraken Pro, Student Developer Pack members will get all the features of GitKraken plus:. The ability to resolve merge conflicts in the app. Multiple profiles for work and personal use. Support for GitHub Enterprise Students can get free access to professional developer tools from companies like Datadog, Travis CI, and Unreal Engine. The Student Developer Pack lets you learn, experiment, and build software with the tools developers use at work every day without worrying about cost.
Students, get a Git GUI now with your.