Atlassian Rebrands
-
Our bold new brand - Work Life by Atlassian
We've updated the Atlassian logo and our product logos. We want our brand to best reflect why we exist, what we believe in, and where we’re headed.
Ok, so a lot of bullshit words, but I think their old logo looked better and the logo for SourceTree is just awful compared to the previous one.
Also, please describe how the new logo is even the same amount of human as the previous one.
Also TIL they bought Trello.
-
@jazzyjosh SourceTree is awful so maybe the awful logo will scare people away from it, net positive IMO.
-
@blakeyrat I use it for two things:
- Visualizing the object graph
- Adding individual lines/hunks to my index. Way easier than
git add -p
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Our bold new brand - Work Life by Atlassian
We've updated the Atlassian logo and our product logos. We want our brand to best reflect why we exist, what we believe in, and where we’re headed.
Ok, so a lot of bullshit words, but I think their old logo looked better and the logo for SourceTree is just awful compared to the previous one.
Also, please describe how the new logo is even the same amount of human as the previous one.
Also TIL they bought Trello.
The logo in the onebox looks like the tips of a couple of butter knives. Are they trying to say they're dull and of limited utility?
-
We’ve built this belief around teamwork into our logos, focusing on the specific benefits we want our customers to feel when teamwork is at its best. And I’m proud of the end result. Like us, you may notice important symbolism around teams in the new Atlassian logo – two people high-fiving, a mountain ready for teams to scale, or even the letter A formed from two pillars reinforcing each other.
And for the curious: the earliest version of the Atlassian logo, which I “created” in 2002, was inspired by the sky-holding Greek God Atlas, and the incredible example of legendary service and support that represents. While legendary service is still a core pillar at Atlassian, we’ve grown to embody broader and bigger ideas around teamwork and team potential.
I’m excited about our new logo for the same reason I appreciate our old one: it’s friendly, human, and reflects our genuine personality.
Swearing in your own press release.
Classy.
-
@raceprouk said in Atlassian Rebrands:
you may notice important symbolism around teams in the new Atlassian logo – two people high-fiving, a mountain ready for teams to scale, or even the letter A formed from two pillars reinforcing each other.
Nah, I'm sticking with the two butter knives in a fight to the death over the last pad of butter.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@blakeyrat I use it for two things:
- Visualizing the object graph
- Adding individual lines/hunks to my index. Way easier than
git add -p
You can do both through Git GUI.
-
Doesn't look like it at first glance.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Visualizing the object graph
I've never found that visualization even slightly remotely helpful. The VS implementation omits it entirely and it's not like I spend every day pining to get it back.
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Adding individual lines/hunks to my index. Way easier than git add -p
I use copy and paste in VS with the two versions open side-by-side.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I use copy and paste in VS with the two versions open side-by-side.
-
@jazzyjosh I open two windows side-by-side and use a common well-understood-since-1984 tool to move content from one to another! SURELY I AM THE WTF! If it's not pointlessly complicated and difficult, it's not software engineering, dammit!
Seriously, though, what's wrong with what I'm doing exactly? In fact it's better, because if I copy a chunk over that screws with the formatting (say it's not tabbed in far enough) I can just control-K, control-D and fix that before committing.
-
Because clicking a button is difficult
How does that even change your index anyway? You still have to do a
git addafterwards.@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
In fact it's better, because if I copy a chunk over that screws with the formatting (say it's not tabbed in far enough) I can just control-K, control-D and fix that before committing.
Why are you comparing a copy-paste workflow to a non-copy-paste workflow? I would never get into the "Formatting is wrong from the duplicate copy of this file I'm using" because I only use a single file.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Because clicking a button is difficult
Waiting the 500 hours it takes SourceTree to complete any action, no matter how simple, is difficult. VS has this thing called "responsiveness". It also has this thing called "the UI doesn't look like it was designed by a sadist".
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
How does that even change your index anyway? You still have to do a git add afterwards.
VS just magically does that.
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Why are you comparing a copy-paste workflow to a non-copy-paste workflow? I would never get into the "Formatting is wrong from the duplicate copy of this file I'm using" because I only use a single file.
Maybe I misunderstand what you're doing, but the "individual lines/hunks" (hunks?) you're putting come from somewhere. I assumed either a different version of the file or a different file?
Whatever, point is SourceTree is garbage.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I assumed either a different version of the file or a different file?
They're the pending changes that have been made but not added to the index yet (i.e. staged for commit).
Also VS automatically modifying the index sounds super
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
They're the pending changes that have been made but not added to the index yet (i.e. staged for commit).
Yeah; it's retarded that in Git those are two separate things.
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Also VS automatically modifying the index sounds super
Why wouldn't it? Why would I want to make a change and ever not immediately "stage" it or whatever moron terminology Git uses? I can't imagine a reason.
VS also simplifies "pull/push" into "sync" because why would you ever want to do one and not the other? It fixes a lot of moron in Git.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Why wouldn't it? Why would I want to make a change and ever not immediately "stage" it or whatever moron terminology Git uses? I can't imagine a reason.
If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
why would you ever want to do one and not the other?
And actually, I pull all the time without intending to push. The "sync" paradigm is weird.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?
But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.
I have a LOT of criticisms of Git, but it's "ignore" feature handles 100% of that problem. It's implemented in a moron way, but it works.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
And actually, I pull all the time without intending to push.
Why?
And note you can't answer:
- I've always done it that way
- I never engage my neurons and think about what I'm doing, I just click stuff
I mean, maybe there's a valid reason to do that but... what is it?
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.
Yes. I can't remember why off the top of my head, but I remember precisely that use case.
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
And actually, I pull all the time without intending to push.
Why?
And note you can't answer:
- I've always done it that way
- I never engage my neurons and think about what I'm doing, I just click stuff
I mean, maybe there's a valid reason to do that but... what is it?
I know I'm going to need to work on feature X. It uses some code from feature Y that's not in my local copy. But I've already started work on X, in progress, and I don't want to "sync" it. So I pull without pushing.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I know I'm going to need to work on feature X. It uses some code from feature Y that's not in my local copy. But I've already started work on X, in progress, and I don't want to "sync" it. So I pull without pushing.
If you "sync" without any outgoing commits, it obviously won't push any commits. If you do have commits, the ones that'd get pushed from hitting "sync" are identical to the ones that'd get pushed when the feature's done.
So no, this is still not making sense to me.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.
I went a little too far past the point I needed to commit. Let me only add the stuff I want in this commit and then I'll continue working on the next commit.
-
@coderpatsy said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@blakeyrat I use it for two things:
- Visualizing the object graph
- Adding individual lines/hunks to my index. Way easier than
git add -p
You can do both through Git GUI.
"Can do" and "can do intuitively" are two different things. Git GUI Blame and Gitk are still manageable but every time I open Git GUI I have to rediscover how to do basic things like stage files. Instead I tend to use Git Cola which at least has context menus and uses native widgets.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Our bold new brand - Work Life by Atlassian
We've updated the Atlassian logo and our product logos. We want our brand to best reflect why we exist, what we believe in, and where we’re headed.
The logo looks like someone has just drawn a tent. So they exist to camp out, believe in canvas and are headed off to Yosemite somewhere?
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Because clicking a button is difficult
Waiting the 500 hours it takes SourceTree to complete any action, no matter how simple, is difficult. VS has this thing called "responsiveness". It also has this thing called "the UI doesn't look like it was designed by a sadist".
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
How does that even change your index anyway? You still have to do a git add afterwards.
VS just magically does that.
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Why are you comparing a copy-paste workflow to a non-copy-paste workflow? I would never get into the "Formatting is wrong from the duplicate copy of this file I'm using" because I only use a single file.
Maybe I misunderstand what you're doing, but the "individual lines/hunks" (hunks?) you're putting come from somewhere. I assumed either a different version of the file or a different file?
Whatever, point is SourceTree is garbage.
In VS 2015 I see a Compare with unmodified menu option when I right click on a file in Solution Explorer. Why not just use that?
I personally dislike source control in my IDE, in both VS and IntelliJ. I only want code open in my IDE. I don't like diff tabs mixing with my code files tabs. I know VS has some other tools that like to open their own tabs (the loadtest runner and object graph explorer for instance).
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Yes. I can't remember why off the top of my head, but I remember precisely that use case.
I mean, the obvious one is "Temp files that it's not worth adding to the ignore file".
Cause that's how you end up with
output/ log.log project-x.log //This is the new log format something.log uploads/ //Sometimes these files appear in the project because of the build script somefile.bla ... otherfile.blain your .gitignore
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
identical to the ones that'd get pushed when the feature's done.
unless, of course, you squash the commits when you're done with the feature.
Or if you build only on push (not on individual commits - Gitlab does this), and don't want to break the build.
Or any other number of reasons.
-
Oh right, we were discussing logos...
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Also, please describe how the new logo is even the same amount of human as the previous one.
Looks more like a tornado painted over a triangular background.
Also TIL they bought Trello.
The deal closed in february or something.
-
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
In VS 2015 I see a Compare with unmodified menu option when I right click on a file in Solution Explorer. Why not just use that?
I... do use that?
The nice thing is both documents in the "compare" view are editable. That's what I'm talking about what I say I just copy and paste from one to the other if I need to.
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I personally dislike source control in my IDE, in both VS and IntelliJ.
I can't wait to hear your entirely rational and not-at-all-insane reasoning for this!
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I only want code open in my IDE. I don't like diff tabs mixing with my code files tabs. I know VS has some other tools that like to open their own tabs (the loadtest runner and object graph explorer for instance).
"And dragging the source control-related stuff into a new window? UNTHINKABLE!"
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I mean, the obvious one is "Temp files that it's not worth adding to the ignore file".
- Why are those in your working directory?
- If there is a valid reason for that (which I doubt), why aren't they in the "ignore" list?
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
unless, of course, you squash the commits when you're done with the feature.
"Let's use source control to track code change history, then REMOVE THE HISTORY BEFORE PUTTING IT ON A SERVER! Derp-de-derp-derp-derp I R GiT FAN!"
If you're just going to shit all over history, why use source control at all?
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
"Let's use source control to track code change history, then REMOVE THE HISTORY BEFORE PUTTING IT ON A SERVER! Derp-de-derp-derp-derp I R GiT FAN!"
I'm sorry that you can't seem to wrap your brain around that use case. If you think the only way to respond to something you don't understand is to insult someone, though, then you're more like your "open source developers" than you would care to admit.
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If you're just going to shit all over history, why use source control at all?
Because you're changing your local history, not what's on the server, so it still works fine?
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Why are those in your working directory?
I don't know. Ask the idiot who wrote the build script. Or have you never had to work in nonsensical environments?
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If there is a valid reason for that (which I doubt), why aren't they in the "ignore" list?
Because the filenames are randomly generated. I don't know.
Or, again, maybe it's not worth changing the .ignore file every time you have a new file there. If only you could design something that would tell the source control system that it should add the file or something. Then you just add files you want and don't add ones you don't.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I only want code open in my IDE. I don't like diff tabs mixing with my code files tabs. I know VS has some other tools that like to open their own tabs (the loadtest runner and object graph explorer for instance).
"And dragging the source control-related stuff into a new window? UNTHINKABLE!"
Heaven forbid people have different preferences for how they work! As long as I get what I need to in a timely manner done, who cares? I've tried various integrated source control tools. If I thought they worked better, I'd use them. Just like if I thought that Notepad++ and the .NET SDK worked better than VS I'd use those. I don't so I use VS.
-
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I only want code open in my IDE. I don't like diff tabs mixing with my code files tabs. I know VS has some other tools that like to open their own tabs (the loadtest runner and object graph explorer for instance).
"And dragging the source control-related stuff into a new window? UNTHINKABLE!"
Heaven forbid people have different preferences for how they work! As long as I get what I need to in a timely manner done, who cares? I've tried various integrated source control tools. If I thought they worked better, I'd use them. Just like if I thought that Notepad++ and the .NET SDK worked better than VS I'd use those. I don't so I use VS.
FWIW VS's Git plugin is incredibly simplistic. I can understand not using it if you need to actually do work in Git (anything more complex than simple commit/
push/pullsync is really not feasible). IntelliJ's is really good though.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I don't know. Ask the idiot who wrote the build script. Or have you never had to work in nonsensical environments?
I guess I didn't realize you were a little baby infant that is incapable of fixing problems when you come across them.
I guess cry out for mommy, she'll make it all better.
@mikehurley said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Heaven forbid people have different preferences for how they work!
I don't care if people have different preferences, what I care about is when people do things for knee-jerk or irrational reasons instead of actually firing off some neurons in those squishy brains of theirs.
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
FWIW VS's Git plugin is incredibly simplistic.
Good! Git is a over-complex piece of broken garbage. "Simple" is exactly what is needed.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I guess I didn't realize you were a little baby infant that is incapable of fixing problems when you come across them.
I like my job, so I prefer to avoid doing something that could potentially get me fired. Like changing a build script that works for no good reason. (And no, "generates files that I can safely ignore using the features built in to the vcs we're using" is not a good reason).
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Good! Git is a over-complex piece of broken garbage. "Simple" is exactly what is needed.
And what happens when that oversimplifying abstraction leaks?
You get a "blakeyrat can't git" thread.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Like changing a build script that works for no good reason.
You could at least ask for an explanation of why it's building in the working directory, which is insane.
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
And what happens when that oversimplifying abstraction breaks?
Maybe they should have designed Git to be more concrete and less abstract.
It's only abstract because they were shitty lazy developer. Simple is difficult. The Git team didn't do any of the work to make their tool simple because they're lazy and/or incompetent. Yet they have tons of cachet among morons who are fans of open source for working on it.
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
You get a "blakeyrat can't git" thread.
True; I can't. Because it's shitty.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Maybe they should have designed Git to be more concrete and less abstract.
err... I think you're misunderstanding the term "leaky abstraction"
Git is concrete. The overly simple GUI that hides all the "scary stuff" is the abstraction.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
The Git team didn't do any of the work to make their tool simple because they're lazy and/or incompetent.
The "Git team" is like one person.
Perhaps they didn't do the work to make their tool simple because it wasn't their priority.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
err... I think you're misunderstanding the term "leaky abstraction"
I think the problem is that Git doesn't have any abstraction at all, frankly. If you ask people how to use Git they jump directly to "directed acyclic graph". That's not an abstraction, that's some egg-head math term describing exactly how it's implemented.
That, combined with the fact that it has no opinions (strong or otherwise) is what makes it so fucking difficult to use. Of course it doesn't help that the developers don't give a shit that it's difficult to use and won't do anything to fix it.
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
The "Git team" is like one person.
Good, that makes it more punchable.
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Perhaps they didn't do the work to make their tool simple because it wasn't their priority.
They that one person is a shitty developer who writes shitty software and IT people need to stop fucking bowing down and praising him for punishing us with that unusable garbage.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Maybe they should have designed Git to be more concrete and less abstract.
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I think the problem is that Git doesn't have any abstraction at all, frankly.
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
It's only abstract because they were shitty lazy developer.
??
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
They that one person is a shitty developer who writes shitty software and IT people need to stop fucking bowing down and praising him for punishing us with that unusable garbage.
Who's doing that? Not me. Not really anyone here on this forum. It's pretty widely known that Git's usability is terminally crappy. It's just that it's the "best tool" for a lot of use cases.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If you ask people how to use Git they jump directly to "directed acyclic graph". That's not an abstraction, that's some egg-head math term describing exactly how it's implemented.
Also, btw, I would never do that.
I'd explain the commands you need to know (
git commit,git push,git pull), and also point them to some GUIs which work relatively well. Explain branching and merging once they understand the simple use case. I don't understand "directed acyclic graph", and I'm perfectly able to use Git.
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?
But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.
I have a LOT of criticisms of Git, but it's "ignore" feature handles 100% of that problem. It's implemented in a moron way, but it works.
I often end up working on several different unrelated things at once and need to commit them separately while they all exist in my working tree at the same time. It's just how I code. I can't really do only one thing at a time without getting distracted.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I went a little too far past the point I needed to commit. Let me only add the stuff I want in this commit and then I'll continue working on the next commit.
That's my usual use case for not staging files that have changed in my working directory. But VS also lets you unstage files so meh?
In any case, back on topic (as if that's going to last):
@jazzyjosh said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Ok, so a lot of bullshit words, but I think their old logo looked better and the logo for SourceTree is just awful compared to the previous one.
Also, please describe how the new logo is even the same amount of human as the previous one.
Also TIL they bought Trello.
I wonder if that has something to do with whatever their new project called Stride is? All I know about Stride is that it means an extra click now when I go to hipchat.com.
Seems like they're moving a little fast in multiple directions to me but hey, if they have the resources then more power to them, I guess.
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
point them to some GUIs which work relatively well.
There's no such thing.
-
@mrl said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
point them to some GUIs which work relatively well.
There's no such thing.
Incorrect
-
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Why wouldn't it? Why would I want to make a change and ever not immediately "stage" it or whatever moron terminology Git uses? I can't imagine a reason.
If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?
Other VCSes let you specify which files to commit when you issue the commit command (though none that I've used aside from git let you commit partial files).
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
I think the problem is that Git doesn't have any abstraction at all, frankly. If you ask people how to use Git they jump directly to "directed acyclic graph". That's not an abstraction, that's some egg-head math term describing exactly how it's implemented.
I don't think you understand what "abstraction" means.
-
-
@blakeyrat said in Atlassian Rebrands:
@sloosecannon said in Atlassian Rebrands:
If you've got stuff in the project directory that you don't want committed, perhaps?
But also not in the ignore file? What would that be? Help my imagination.
I have a LOT of criticisms of Git, but it's "ignore" feature handles 100% of that problem. It's implemented in a moron way, but it works.
Yeah, I'm sure your co-workers love it when you commit 500 unrelated changes in one commit because you don't know about
git add -p.
-
@raceprouk said in Atlassian Rebrands:
Classy.
TIL that Sans Bullshit Sans is missing a ligature for "Open company".
