Inessential Weirdnesses
-
Open source projects would be better if they were wikipedia.
-
I'll be the one to say it. Git is a complicated tool for a complicated task. It's generally expected that programmers can deal with complicated technical tools and problems, because that's what programmers do.
I don't find the expectation that a practitioner in a highly technical field possesses highly technical skills to be that unreasonable.
Filed under: Technical, technical, technical. The word has lost all meaning.
-
I'll be the one to say it. Git is a complicated tool for a complicated task.
I like simpler tools, but I'll also admit that they can't do some of the more complicated tasks that git can do. And, for a big project like the Linux kernel, need to do. My needs are more modest, and so are my tools.
-
Hear, hear! Right tool for the right job.
-
I seriously don't get the whole "impossible" thing. I figured the basics out in a day, having never used a source control before. Maybe that's an advantage, and maybe it's because I didn't run into a complicated project head first. But I didn't find it that impossible. Not anywhere near to needing months to learn the tool.
Maybe it's the lack of GUI clients and blakey's hatred of CLI? Doesn't bother me personally, I just spent time writing magical incantations in my code editor, a few more in terminal won't kill me.
-
Maybe it's the lack of GUI clients and blakey's hatred of CLI? Doesn't bother me personally, I just spent time writing magical incantations in my code editor, a few more in terminal won't kill me.
If your default CLI was cmd.exe (and don't give me no powershell bullshit) you'd hate using a CLI, too.
-
If your default CLI was cmd.exe (and don't give me no powershell bullshit) you'd hate using a CLI, too.
Point to you, sir.
-
I seriously don't get the whole "impossible" thing.
Simple. It's impossible for @blakeyrat, so it must therefore be impossible for normal people in general.
Filed under: not saying @blakeyrat is normal
-
I'll be the one to say it. Git is a complicated tool for a complicated task. It's generally expected that programmers can deal with complicated technical tools and problems, because that's what programmers do.
Ok; and if I want to donate my time by writing documentation? Or creating mock-ups of the UI? Why should I be subjected to it? Right now, projects that use Git make everybody use Git, not just the programmers.
(Not that I think programmers should be subjected to something so shitty, either. But I'm just making a point.)
The problem isn't that Git is complicated. The problem is that Git is unnecessarily complicated.
-
I seriously don't get the whole "impossible" thing. I figured the basics out in a day, having never used a source control before. Maybe that's an advantage, and maybe it's because I didn't run into a complicated project head first. But I didn't find it that impossible. Not anywhere near to needing months to learn the tool.
So far the only people I've ever met who like Git are people who learned Git first before any other SCMs. (Except one guy who learned VSS, then moved to Git. But VSS was so shitty, meh. I'll count him.)
Maybe it's the lack of GUI clients and blakey's hatred of CLI?
The lack of GUI clients is the Git's project's way of saying, "oh BTW, we absolutely hate our users! Fuck them!"
I don't hate CLI, as I've stated about a billion times around here. My problems with current CLIs is that they're unusable and there's zero evolution of the concept. (Except for Microsoft, which introduced PowerShell. But then PowerShell has had zero evolution in years also...)
If you want a short list of things I hate: 1) software that shows disdain for its own users, 2) software that's incredibly stagnant and no longer evolves.
Doesn't bother me personally, I just spent time writing magical incantations in my code editor, a few more in terminal won't kill me.
Right; but we're not talking about you. We're talking about newcomers who might be deciding whether to join your open source project or not. Those people are not you. Those people may even be quite different from you.
-
There a very shiny Git GUI.
There a open-source Git GUI with the similar interface as TortoiseSVN/CVS.
Maybe git doesn't hate it's users. Maybe just maybe they left the GUI up to the rest of the community to develop WHICH THEY FUCKING DID,
-
Maybe it's the lack of GUI clients and blakey's hatred of CLI? Doesn't bother me personally, I just spent time writing magical incantations in my code editor, a few more in terminal won't kill me.
Not that anyone asked, but here are three GUI tools I keep close when working with Git:-
gitk: while ugly and blessed with unintuitive keyboard shortcuts, its log view conveys a lot more information than the CLI log view (except
--follow
) -
Git Cola : an improved Commit and repo-mangement tool.
-
TortoiseGit : for using a sane windowing toolkit, consistent log views (gitk doesn't support
--follow, hurray) and can skip the index step if you like. Downsides: partial commits might be harder to do, and this one doesn't run on Linux so your "friends" can't join in the fun. Also, it still requires Git for Windows or whatever it is called.
-
-
Free and Commerical Tool that runs on all 3 platforms. Commerical license is only needed for commerical use.
-
https://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/
There a open-source Git GUI with the similar interface as TortoiseSVN/CVS.
Have you ever tried it? Last time I did, it didn't even fucking install correctly. It downloaded 500 MB of crap, then failed to install and also failed to delete the crap. (Which, BTW, was not in %TEMP% but was in Program Files.)
-
What? I use it as my main client on Windows. Works just fine. I have it network installed on ~20 computers at my company.
I think you did something seriously wrong, it definitely does not install 500MB of crap. It doesn't need runtimes or QT or any nonsense since its native Windows.
In either case theres tons of alternatives to TortoiseGit.
-
projects that use Git make everybody use Git, not just the programmers
I find that this point is overlooked quite frequently.
Not everyone involved in development projects are techy. Sure UX people usually have enough tech clout to use JS/HTML and CSS, but what about the asset/media guys. They tend to be more artistic (and less techy) in my experience, and have difficulties with the likes of SVN, never mind Git.
-
What? I use it as my main client on Windows. Works just fine. I have it network installed on ~20 computers at my company.
You win a bagel?
When I tried it, it was completely, 100%, fucking utterly broken shite. Maybe it deleted the 500 MB of crap after the install process completes, not that that ever happened on any of the machines I tried it on, but in my case: yes, it opened a fucking CLI window, ran something like apt-get (probably not actually apt-get, but something that resembled it), and downloaded 500 fucking MB of ass.
Probably because I had the sheer audacity to install those program files into a folder named "Program Files", which has a space in it, therefore all shitty software ported from shitty Linux fails. Because obviously Linux doesn't support spaces in folder names-- oh it does? Then I guess it's just because all open source software is shit made by idiots now and forever.
The only Git GUIs I've tried that actually worked are GitHub for Windows and the one that comes with Visual Studio 2013.
Of those two, only the one Microsoft made is both (somewhat) usable and feature-complete. (GitHub for Windows, incredibly, lacks merging. Despite having a version number over 1.0.)
-
The problem is, almost every open source project has a big-ass webpage that's like, "HEY HELP OUR PROJECT, COME CONTRIBUTE" and it's pretty fucking hypocritical if you're like "come contribute" on one hand, and then, "oh BTW we use Git with no normal person can figure out in less than 6 months" on another.
Ok; and if I want to donate my time by writing documentation? Or creating mock-ups of the UI? Why should I be subjected to it?
The problem isn't that Git is complicated. The problem is that Git is unnecessarily complicated.
If you're a coder and want to contribute to a software project, then fucking learn whatever source control tool they are using. These things aren't nuclear science, git included. If you can't be bothered that much, then your "contributions" will probably be greater burden than benefit.
Agree about other types of contributions (testers, UI people, writers)... It's preferable if they could learn source control, but if I was running an OS project, I would accept their stuff through email and merge it myself (at least as far as shit budget goes... see below).
Right; but things like using mailing lists and IRC instead of a web forum of some sort aren't "shared values", they're just lazy. We do it that way because we've always done it that way. A strong community would periodically go back and re-example their communication methods: is this working for us? How can we improve it? How can we make it more usable and accessible?
People donate their time to OSS because it's fun. They like programming, engineering, design. In fact, they like these things so much, they are willing to suffer a certain amount of other bullshit just so they'd get to keep doing it.
However, there's a limit on how much shit they can swallow before their project stops being fun and starts feeling like work. So you have to budget the bullshit carefully. It's a zero sum game, where you need to carefully balance the intake of shit from public interaction, bureaucracy, administration and management, so everything is taken care of as best as possible.
Back to the issue. You want to replace your crusty old mailing list with a shiny new forum or website? Unless it's fun (and it probably won't be), the effort will come out of the shit budget. What are the benefits? Hmm, maybe easier history browsing? Better interface? Easier access for newbies? Ok, some of that is worth some effort. But how much?
Let's put a number on it. Using the cutting-edge scientific methods, you decide the switch will cost about 68 shit points. Boy, that's a lot of shit points for something you don't really need. For that amount of SP, you could close 10 old bug tickets or answer 50 user emails or finally write that 10-point easy install guide people have been crying about for months. Is the trade-off worth it? It seems most OSS projects decide not. Thus, they get to keep the 1996-era mailing list.
So yeah, this is a well known limit with open source software. And I, for one, am glad for it. Keeps making sure I have an actual paying job, for two.
-
If you're a coder and want to contribute to a software project, then fucking learn whatever source control tool they are using. These things aren't nuclear science, git included. If you can't be bothered that much, then your "contributions" will probably be greater burden than benefit.
Ok, can you see how that might not be very inviting?
It's preferable if they could learn source control, but if I was running an OS project, I would accept their stuff through email and merge it myself (at least as far as shit budget goes... see below).
No; if you were running an open source project, you'd instantly become a huge dick and say "PATCHES WELCOME!" in response to any criticism or attempt to help your project.
People donate their time to OSS because it's fun.
No it's not. Writing shitty software with shitty people using shitty tools is not fun.
They like programming, engineering, design. In fact, they like these things so much, they are willing to suffer a certain amount of other bullshit just so they'd get to keep doing it.
Oh you covered that. These people really love their jobs. The problem is: they're not very good at it. The end-product is still shitty.
What you really need is good programmers, good engineers, and good designers, and the open source world has precious few of those, and those they do have are making money at Mozilla or Google.
So yeah, this is a well known limit with open source software. And I, for one, am glad for it. Keeps making sure I have an actual paying job, for two.
You get paid to write shitty software with shitty people using shitty tools? Or you get paid to swoop in later and fix their mess?
-
The lack of GUI clients is the Git's project's way of saying, "oh BTW, we absolutely hate our users! Fuck them!"
-
No; if you were running an open source project, you'd instantly become a huge dick and say "PATCHES WELCOME!" in response to any criticism or attempt to help your project.
Possibly, though I haven't. Moar importantly, THAT'S NOT ON THE LIST.
-
So far the only people I've ever met who like Git are people who learned Git first before any other SCMs.
I like Git and my history is vaguely ClearCase -> CVS -> SVN -> TFS -> Git.
I think Git is a useful tool that was easy to learn.
The lack of GUI clients is the Git's project's way of saying, "oh BTW, we absolutely hate our users! Fuck them!"
Git's intended user base consists of people who are comfortable with CLI (i.e. programmers).
-
Ok, can you see how that might not be very inviting?
- I want to contribute to your project, I really do. It's just that, you see, I don't really know how to program. Or actually, sort of, own a computer... So if you could just send over a PC and a few programming 101 books, you might see some patches a few months down the line.
-...
- You wont!? ELITIST SCUM! YOU JUST LOST A CONTRIBUTOR!No it's not. Writing shitty software with shitty people using shitty tools is not fun.
Hey I don't judge you for the whole anal-cucumber-call-me-miss-Piggy thing, so don't you judge me for OSS!
You get paid to write shitty software with shitty people using shitty tools? Or you get paid to swoop in later and fix their mess?
I get paid because, even though there are people willing to write software for free, they are incapable of dealing with types of software and related issues they don't find interesting.
-
Git's intended user base consists of people who are comfortable with CLI
Ok...
(i.e. programmers).
Ah, but that does not follow. For I am a programmer, and I cannot use CLIs effectively.
-
- I want to contribute to your project, I really do. It's just that, you see, I don't really know how to program. Or actually, sort of, own a computer... So if you could just send over a PC and a few programming 101 books, you might see some patches a few months down the line. -... - You wont!? ELITIST SCUM! YOU JUST LOST A CONTRIBUTOR!
The guy who doesn't own a computer could still be mocking-up UIs, or doing usability testing, or even writing documentation if he has one of those word processors that can save to 3.5" floppies.
So yes, that is a problem.
-
Have you ever tried it? Last time I did, it didn't even fucking install correctly. It downloaded 500 MB of crap, then failed to install and also failed to delete the crap. (Which, BTW, was not in %TEMP% but was in Program Files.)
I use TortoiseGIT on Windows and agree, the installation is terrible. It's easy to use once it starts working, but an average UI guy or documentation translator wouldn't be able to install it without help.
-
The guy who doesn't own a computer could still be mocking-up UIs, or doing usability testing, or even writing documentation if he has one of those word processors that can save to 3.5" floppies.
So yes, that is a problem.
If you send me your "contribution" on a 3.5'' floppy, you just cost me more money than if I just hired someone to do it properly.
-
Just leaving this here: https://windows.github.com/
-
I think tortoise uses that as backend.
The biggest hurdle is, frankly, generating putty keys and setting them up properly. That's pain in the ass on linux too, but double that on Windows.
-
Eh, with TortoiseGit you just opt to use OpenSSH on install. That's what all my setups do. Screw Putty and Putty Key whatever the fuck bullshit.
But ignoring that. I like how how the other git clients being linked are being ignored. Gotta love closed arguments.
http://www.sourcetreeapp.com/ This one is excellent alternative.
-
Yes, especially if you end up needing to buy some obscure word processor for 1985 just to open the file. On top of the floppy drive.
I really don't understand why anybody engages with such an obvious troll. Pissing him off is kind of fun, though. But you're not being rude enough for that.
-
Eh, with TortoiseGit you just opt to use OpenSSH on install. That's what all my setups do. Screw Putty and Putty Key whatever the fuck bullshit.
Some other colleagues tried that and ran into problems. Also, the installer is very explicit they would really like you to use Putty key.
Do you have any idea why? Serious question.
-
Programmers ... actually remember what grammar is
They do? Grammar Nazis aside, that's somewhat debatable.
-
Like paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (1-based indexing). The rest, not so much.
-
But ignoring that. I like how how the other git clients being linked are being ignored. Gotta love closed arguments.
None of them are from the Git project, so none of them are relevant to the point I made. I respond to relevant arguments.
-
-
Why does the git project have to make the GUI?
Only argument I see is:
"oh BTW we use Git with no normal person can figure out in less than 6 months" o
You can if you use a GUI and don't have to care about CLI.
-
-
Why does the git project have to make the GUI?
Why would they make 50% of the project and not the other 50%? Why would they only write half of a thing, then release it as if it were complete when it's nowhere close to complete?
You can if you use a GUI and don't have to care about CLI.
Kind of. When I first started with Git, no I could not-- it did not exist. There was only Git for Windows which was (and is) horribly incomplete. Now you can, admittedly.
-
Why does the git project have to make the GUI?
Because he's a common troll and will never be satisfied by any response. So he shifts the goalposts.
The only thing we can do is make him look stupid until he realizes he's just a useless narcissist.
-
Yes, especially if you end up needing to buy some obscure word processor for 1985 just to open the file. On top of the floppy drive.
I really don't understand why anybody engages with such an obvious troll. Pissing him off is kind of fun, though. But you're not being rude enough for that.
Blakey has some good points. He's just a bit too... passionate about things.
In the end, this whole issue seems to be a simple matter of economics. For every contributor, I would make a "profits" and "costs" column in a mental ledger. Under profits, I'd put all that they contribute to the project. Under costs, all the special attention and hand holding they require. Draw the line and tally up.
You want to contribute code but don't like git? So I have to copy-paste patches from your emails and commit them myself? Well buddy, you better be the best damn coder the world has ever seen. A designer or translator, on the other hand, is a whole different story. It all depends on what the project needs. At least that's how it should be, IMO.
-
First thought off my head is certain programs like to set a HOME path variable. Some cadence software is fucking notorious for that. When the home path is weird you need to make the .ssh folder in that weird path instead of the expected C:/Users/Username because openssh defaults to using it. Otherwise got any more details?
-
First thought of my head is certain program like to set a HOME path variable. Some cadence software is fucking notorious for that. When the home path is weird you need to make the .ssh folder in that weird path instead of the expected C:/Users/Username.
That path (C:/Users/Username) is wrong; it's not guaranteed to be writable by the OS contract. If your software is putting files there, your software is buggy.
-
Why would they make 50% of the project and not the other 50%? Why would they only write half of a thing, then release it as if it were complete when it's nowhere close to complete?
Maybe they know they aren't good at GUIs and left that to someone else? Especially if they didn't need it, so it was finished for their purposes. Why waste their time on stuff that's irrelevant to them, especially if they aren't very good at it?
-
Why would they make 50% of the project and not the other 50%? Why would they only write half of a thing, then release it as if it were complete when it's nowhere close to complete?
Because they released the part they needed and wanted. They left the hooks in to manage it via other software however. Why should someone build a bridge if they don't want to use it.
SVN doesn't have a builtin gui.
CVS doesn't have a builtin gui.
Bazaar, Mercurial don't have a builtin GUI.It's like telling the others of authors they only did 50% of the work by not creating the software to communicate with XYZ device.
-
Why should someone build a bridge if they don't want to use it.
BETTER ANALOGY: Why would they build a bridge and then not paint the lines‽
-
Maybe they know they aren't good at GUIs and left that to someone else?
But that's not what they did. They declared it "done" long before any thought had gone into a GUI.
Especially if they didn't need it, so it was finished for their purposes.
Then we're just right back to: "this software is just for us and people who think exactly like us, fuck you! We don't need to support users with disabilities, fuck them!"
On a broader philosophical point, why the holy fuck would you even write and release software you didn't expect people to use? And if you expected them to use it, why wouldn't you endeavor to make it usable?
Why waste their time on stuff that's irrelevant to them, especially if they aren't very good at it?
They could recruit someone who is good at it.
-
That path (C:/Users/Username) is wrong; it's not guaranteed to be writable by the OS contract. If your software is putting files there, your software is buggy.
Welcome to world of Linux. OpenSSH uses HOME because HOME is guaranteed to be in that path.
-
SVN doesn't have a builtin gui.CVS doesn't have a builtin gui.Bazaar, Mercurial don't have a builtin GUI.
Right and those are all incomplete also. What is your point exactly?
It's like telling the others of authors they only did 50% of the work by not creating the software to communicate with XYZ device.
I can't parse this sentence.
-
Sourcetree - A free Git & Mercurial client | Atlassian
TortoiseGit – Windows Shell Interface to Git
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
