SmartGit - A better GUI for Git(syntevo.com)
syntevo.com
SmartGit - A better GUI for Git
http://www.syntevo.com/smartgit/index.html
12 comments
Well, I do use and love their SmartSVN... I might give this a try.
What do you like about SmartSVN over TortoiseSVN?
I 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.
Its 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 ?
Since it is Java based, it basically runs on Linux, Win, Mac.
Anybody know of any other alternative ?
The problem with TortoiseSVN is SVNCache.
I'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.
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.
Meh, doesn't have anything compelling that would make me switch from gitx + commandline.
the 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"?
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"?
I'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.
That being said, I feel perfectly fine with just a terminal.
I 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.
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.
If it is like the other tools, then the free version has less features.
(as in if you don't want to pay for the full licence, it falls back to a subset of features).
Restrictions of GPL prevented people from creating commercial Git GUI programs (see GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html). Did they create their own Git implementation from scratch?
The 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.
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.
This 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#GPLInProprietarySys... or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
Thanks for pointers to other implementations!
Thanks for pointers to other implementations!
They most likely use jgit, since they require a JRE, and jgit is under the BSD.
Doesn't this just serve as an ad for this company? I'm not sure why it is being upvoted.
I 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.
Yeah 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.
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.
Out of curiosity what features would it take for you to change over to gitx?
not GitSmart?
"Smart git" is also a lame joke if you're from the UK.
The name for Git itself was chosen for its meaning in the UK.
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").
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").
As seen on /. : "This is a thread for talking about git, not for being one!"
[deleted]
I exited the installer after it seemed like it wanted to overwrite my ~/.gitconfig :[
gitk / git-gui works fine for me whenever I need it.
Sigh the milking of the open source. I wonder how much milk git has left to give to entrepreneurs.
How 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.
In 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?
I 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.
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]
You're right, let's stop running apps on Linux, Apache, PHP, Ruby, Python, Rails...
nginx!
Thanks, I value minuses more than pluses nowadays. It shows that you're thinking against the stream.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaah. :(