Modern Git GUI

Hi,

I know there are several GUIs out there for Git. They are all functional and most of them can be used in the daily work with Git. In my opinion one thing combines them: they aren't very pretty. I currently prefer the CLI to work with Git because it's quick and I am happy with it. But I think there are people out there, who don't want to use the command-line because they are afraid of doing something wrong or anything like this. Additionally the CLI and unattractive GUIs are barriers to people who are not familar with a SCM-system. So I thought about developing a new kind of GUI for Git that looks modern and attractive (you know... some eye-candy stuff) and that is easy to use. In addition I thought about a built-in console (like we know it from first person shooters) so that also people who prefer the CLI might use this GUI application too.

Is there anybody who agrees or disagrees? I really would appreciate some feedback about that idea.

P.S.: Normally I come up with such ideas to the public and ask what others think about it when I have some mockups. I am sorry that I haven't any right now.

André Harms <andre.harms@kuhlsolutions.de> writes:

Every once in a while, someone comes and says "Git GUIs aren't as good as I'd expect, I'll write my own". The result is that we have a myriad of GUIs (see http://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/InterfacesFrontendsAndTools#Graphical_Interfaces ), many of them being half-finished and/or abandonned. I don't believe adding yet-another-one is going to improve the situation, and pick-one-and-improve-it is IMHO a much better approach.

I use mostly the command-line, so I couldn't make a detailed review of the existing, but tools like git-cola and a few others sound "modern" to me (Qt4 & co).

If you decide to go on with your project, either you want to carry it out alone, or you'll have to convince other developers to join. In the second case, a good starting point would be to explain why the other GUI are not good enough, and why you can't just contribute to them.

2010/1/24 Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>:

Basically I agree with you. And I think you're right that yet another one won't improve the situation immediately. I've to admin, that I didn't think about that very much. So I have to rethink my plan. But my concept is different than the one of other GUIs.

If I decide to go on anyhow, I'll work those things out clearly. Thanks for the tip. In my opinion other GUIs aren't intuitve for first-time users and aren't as good for experienced users as the command-line. But a GUI _can_ be helpful for experienced users as well. So there's a hole that can be filled. And my concept is based on a hybrid GUI that also offers a command-line for experienced users. So actions that are made with the built in command-line (console) are visualized. That also might be good for beginners who like to use the command-line but are afraid of using it. If I go on I'll probably use Clutter as GUI toolkit. With it one is able to create real good looking GUIs (though it's not a guarantor for a good GUI).

Thanks for your opinion.

Hi,

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Actually, a much better way would be to be positive, not negative. I.e. to show something you did, which hopefully entices others to use your project (and maybe contribute to it).

Ciao, Dscho

2010/1/25 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>:

Actually in this case, I don't think that would be good enough. My first thought would be "why didn't he just add this feature to an existing GUI rather than reinventing the wheel yet again". So there would really have to be good reasons why the other GUIs aren't a good enough starting point

[Re-adding cc culled by John. Bad boy :) ] John Tapsell venit, vidit, dixit 25.01.2010 15:30:

A first step may be making the feature matrix in the wiki more honest - I've been meaning to do this for ages... For example, a gui which simply calls "gitk" for history view simply does not support history view according to my books, at least not on the same level (gui *integration*) as guis doing this natively. Or else gitk would have all git-gui features and vice versa... or even plain git, for that matter.

Michael

Hi,

IMHO, a really important question is: why do we have so many started-not-terminated GUIs?

My point of view:
- a "good" GUI is a GUI that integrates well with a desktop
- a "good" GUI is a GUI that reuse an already existing/known metaphor
The most difficult is that raw Git is "stupid content tracker". So, a
complete GUI will expose too many features to end-user:
- which workflow: pull, push, email, ssh, ...
- topic branches: rebasing or merging
- and what about higher level feature: stash, stg, top git...
So, reading this, possible good GUIs are plugins for IDE with smallest
Git support.

2010/1/23 André Harms <andre.harms@kuhlsolutions.de>:

  On one hand, the proliferation of GUIs for Guit should be good
in a darwinian sense. On the other hand, for a new commer there
are so many to try out that the 'better' ones get a diluted visibility.
 After trying a few I concluded that the Guit GUIs were in the medieval
stage, then I stumbled upon SmartGit and I found it pretty decent.
One good explanation for why there are so many is that to provide
a GUI that is "as simple as possible but no simpler"  is not an easy
problem to solve in terms of UI design, but it is an interesting one.

  Cheers

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:40 PM, André Harms <andre.harms@kuhlsolutions.de> wrote: