ii. Gitâ€¦ GUIs
Nowâ€¦ What about these Guisâ€¦? Here are 4 very short and very imperfect reviews of what seem the most popular ones on Windows.
Don't know if it'll be useful to anybody, but here are some thoughtsâ€¦ 1. Git GUI
This is what could be called the "default" Git GUI. it can be accessed through the command line : "Git gui"
It does come by default when you download Git for Windows. As far as this default is concerned, it's MUCH better than the â€śdefaultâ€ť Hg one I mentioned in my last post about Hg (Mercurial) GUIs.
â€śGit GUIâ€ť is very â€ślate 90s Linux likeâ€ť : a bit ugly but relatively functional. It does what it does pretty well and can even easily do stuff that you canâ€™t do as easily/intuitively (or even at all...) with other programs (e.g. : TortoiseGit). E.g. : â€śstaging/commiting a few lines at a time instead of whole file changed/diff content, (aka hunk) â€” so you can split a big commit into several smaller ones (note that in real life using this feature this can be tricky as you wonâ€™t have necessarily tested these fractioned commitsâ€¦).
Like TortoiseGit, Git GUI adds an explorer shell extensions to the mix (i.e. : explorer context menu items) : Git Commit, Git Branch, Git History, Git Bash, etc. Those can be pretty handy when youâ€™re browsing your repo and donâ€™t want to type a command just to add a few files or commit a small change.
Keyboard navigation is okay, not great
. Certainly better than TortoiseHG though.
I did run into some problems (errors) when I tried to stash (not stage -- different thing) some changes â€” maybe was it a one time glitch?
While not beautiful, the graph logs looks nicer than TortoiseGitâ€™s oneâ€¦ subjective I guess.
Overall, I kinda like the "no frills" Git GUI. "Rough around the edges" (2011 03 15 -- 10 46 : see f0dder comment, later), but simple and effective for most important Git commands. 2. SmartGit
SmartGit, an â€śeasy on the eyesâ€ť and comfortable to configure commercial solution, which I mentioned in an earlier post, isnâ€™t *that* great after all. Wellâ€¦ Ok it ISâ€¦ pretty good. Probably the best feel overall. Thereâ€™s certainly nothing equivalent for Hg
and the other Git solutions donâ€™t look as polished. It doesn't have the rough and unfinished feel to it.
In SmartGit, most Git commands are achieved quickly and intuitively. Great.
It has all of the most important commands one will need to use Git on a day to day basis. Plus it does a few more advanced things, like edit the Git index and manage sub-modules. Nice.
It does miss some other important ones though, like â€śblameâ€ť,
, â€śclone â€“bareâ€ť (last one : surprising, to say the leastâ€¦ Unless I missed something [I did miss the "stash" command which was very obvious
Keyboard usage/navigation (shortcuts, â€śconfigurabilityâ€ťâ€¦) is very good too. Not perfect maybe, but better than all other solutions as itâ€™s configurable (the log view and main/review views offer a â€ścustomizeâ€ť dialog through the "edit" menu, which allows the user to add/edit shortcut keys).
A few maybe insignificant other things I also like about SmartGit: 1- the nice, clean and flexible interface (did I already say it?), 2- the easy well organized and â€śintuitiveâ€ť configuration dialog (e.g. : out the box github config â€” plus a few others source code hosting web solutions like Unfuddle and Codebase â€”, + other very intuitive Git configuration) 3- and little details like the fact that it refreshes its interface automatically when changes are made to the repos (no need to refresh to see what new content youâ€™d need to commit), a nice custom merge and diff tool, etc.
Are these are good enough reasons to keep it for my everyday work ? No sure yet.
I did encounter a few problems and solving these problems meant dropping to the command line. E.g. : how do you "correct" a rebase thatâ€™s stalledâ€¦ and won't abort nor continue ? hmmmm...
Were these problems due to the fact that some commands/actions arenâ€™t transparent enough in terms of their effect and the parameters used (e.g. : rebasingâ€¦ Still confusingâ€¦ Much more than just using the command line IMO) and so I did some really stupid things? Maybe. Or is it because I was using 2 GUIs at once ? Not sure.
The manual is ok, but not as clear as Tortoiseâ€™s, IMHO. Very dry, almost no graphsâ€¦ and so it remains slightly abstract. Iâ€™d almost rather read Gitâ€™s man pages (not bad at all btw). I hope theyâ€™re going to rework the manual a bit.
That said, Iâ€™ll keep an eye on itâ€™s developmentâ€¦ and maybe even use it. Itâ€™s the most promising solution IMO
What Iâ€™d love SmartGit to integrate in future releases (apart from "blame",
, "bisect", etc. support) is :
1- some kind of optional â€śconsole likeâ€ť textual feedback, some commands log view, like the one Git extensions provides (see #4). That would be good (maybe is that a secretly available option butâ€¦ I didnâ€™t find it).
2- an explorer shell extension.
Note : if you don't use it commercially, SmartGit is free. 3. TortoiseGit
TortoiseGit is good, but not perfect either... The UI feels a bit scattered and it's certainly not as sexy as SmartGit, but it seems to offer slightly
more options overall (bisect, patch creation, blame, stash, etc.) -- however it misses an important one (in relation to the Git index) : staging, which the basic Git GUI
do nicely. And, well, itâ€™s got the famous icons overlay.
(Not that useful, but still nice to have â€” I did notice though that it can slow down folder navigation to a crawlâ€¦ I solved that by killing/restarting the icon cache process)
Detail : I think I found the Tortoise rebasing Gui slightly more intuitive than SmartGit's. But there are other (minor) annoyances, like the ugly graph log.
Performance is "ok" (e.g. : quicker than Git Extensions â€” see below). Plus, the manual is pretty good (a bit better than SmarGit like I said).
Butâ€¦ I did run into problems using it too. E.g. : when I tried cloning a repo to a bare one, I got an â€śUnsolvable errorâ€ťâ€¦ which I fortunately resolved easily through the command line.
Keyboard usage/navigation (shortcuts, â€śconfigurabilityâ€ťâ€¦) isnâ€™t that bad either. Not perfect, MUCH better than TortoiseHg (not hard to do)â€¦ But not as Good as SmartGit. I wish I could easily reconfigure the shortcuts to my liking.
â€śTransparency of actionâ€ť isnâ€™t great : same â€ścriticismâ€ť as SmartGit : some optional
pedagogical console-like textual feedback about commands and their options would be good.
A good free overall solution with a few weird things here and there. 4. Git Extensions
While it looks unfinished (e.g. : many missing icons in the menus), Git Extensions is still pretty nice and in active development. It also integrates with Visual Studio.
What I like the most about it is its mixture of relative completeness and friendliness : it implements a lot of Git commands in an understandable format.
I havenâ€™t done a feature for feature comparison, but it also seems that there are even more implemented Git commands than in TortoiseGit or SmartGit. It really allows the user to do pretty advanced operations right from the user interface (like bisect, stash, and sub modules management).
Like I said, itâ€™s pretty intuitive (if you already know Git a bit), the interface is nice (e.g. : graph log looks MUCH nicer than TortoiseGit's horrible one) and it usually shows you what happens in the background when you choose an option : commands line feedback as text, viewable log of past commands, etc. That, I like a lot ! Git Extensions becomes almost a pedagogical tool (i.e. : you learn knew commands and options by using the GUI).
Git Extensions also provides an easy way to configure the whole Git environment: the editor/ the diff and merge tools, SSH connection, etc.
The Keyboard shortcut config is still rudimentary, but the UI for it is there and it looks like itâ€™s going to be expanded.
So... Overall, itâ€™s pretty well done, even if there are still a few bugs (e.g. : the stash dialog kept the stash content visible even when it had been â€śdroppedâ€ť or â€śpoppedâ€ťâ€¦ this happened only once though.), and the sluggishness (the main problem IMO).
I wonâ€™t go into more details here as Iâ€™d repeat stuff I already said.
Would/will I use it ? Yes, but the sluggishness make me prefer Tortoise.
GUI CONCLUSION ??? None yet, Iâ€™m afraidâ€¦
Do I have suggestions ? Probably...
- Maybe try sticking to Git GUI and the command line at first.
- Then, try the other GUIs depending on your needs :
---> Need friendliness, â€śstand aloneâ€ť polished app feel, speed, clarity/Flexibility of UI and most important features for everyday Git usage? Go for SmartGit first.
---> Most advanced options and a "pedagogical twist" ? Try Git Extensions first.
---> Extended explorer integration + a bit of all the previous stuff (relative friendliness, advanced options and pretty good performance)? Try Tortoise Git.
Want everything ? Use them all. But be careful...
Soâ€¦ What to *I* currently use ? I was first mostly on SmartGit, then a combination of the command line + Git GUI and Tortoise. But I must say I also used some of Git Extension config tools (Like the SSH configuration dialog).
The fact that Iâ€™m often browsing my repos, mean that those with shell extensions tend to be used moreâ€¦. Which excludes SmartGit for the moment, but favors Git GUI and Tortoise Git.
The story remains open. I havenâ€™t completely made up my mindâ€¦ "Ultimately", it doesnâ€™t matter that much, really: all of these manipulate the same thing : Git. And, yes, Iâ€™ve decided to use Git instead of Hg. Iâ€™ll give some of the reasons in the sequel. I'm tired now.
[2011 03 15 -- 20 48 : Modified the format for better readability. Added a comment about TortoiseGit and its inability to stage before committing ... unless I missed something.]