Re:I was interviewed by Fog Creek
by jameshart on Thursday April 16, 2015 @12:16PM
(#9388959)
"Can't be compared"
True. The terminal version can't give me a graphical view that displays the commit timeline for a file, color coded by contributor and weighted by commit size, with simple mouse-hover annotation to show me the commit message, and a single click to take me to the related diff, colored to visualize code age and authorship, with hyperlinks to related code files.
(* features may not exist in any actual git client, I'm actually describing an SVN browser I once helped write that was never made available publicly)
Anyway, the terminal version of git runs just fine on Windows, so... why not have both?
Re:I was interviewed by Fog Creek
by farresito on Thursday April 16, 2015 @05:13PM
(#9390786)
> Anyway, the terminal version of git runs just fine on Windows, so... why not have both?
That's exactly my point: that each of them offers different features and both are complementary :)
True. The terminal version can't give me a graphical view that displays the commit timeline for a file, color coded by contributor and weighted by commit size, with simple mouse-hover annotation to show me the commit message, and a single click to take me to the related diff, colored to visualize code age and authorship, with hyperlinks to related code files.
(* features may not exist in any actual git client, I'm actually describing an SVN browser I once helped write that was never made available publicly)
Anyway, the terminal version of git runs just fine on Windows, so... why not have both?