Original Gitx Supports moving the branch on checkout branch as well… Since I have to correct history/change then I would be doing it for the current checkout branch only. So yeah, not moving to rowanj-Gitx as well. :)
-prakash On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Edward Rudd wrote: > I'm using RowanJ's fork and it supports the ability to drag and drop branches > still. Though only when they are not checked out. This one seems to be the > most active fork too.. ( http://rowanj.github.com/gitx/ ) And it seems the > gitx.org (http://gitx.org) website is not listing that fork. > > And AFAIK every other fork I tried still had that ability on non-checked out > branches. A feature I really like as well, and with gitg supported.. ( gitg > is a linux/gnome GUI program "inspired" by GitX ) > > > On Jan 22, 2013, at 13:55 , Prakash wrote: > > Let me throw in a couple of bit... I have been using GitX (the original > > one) for a while and I like it the way it is, it is simple to use for > > day-today activity in combination with command line git. If I have to do > > something serious, repo management etc, I use sourcetree which is free and > > native as well. > > > > One of the nice feature that GitX (original) has is ability to drag and > > drop the branch-name to point to a new commit and make put the changes of > > the newer commit into staging area (hope my description makes sense) > > > > This has allowed me many many time so correct my change easily without > > using git rebase -i command. With many forks that I tried with the sidebars > > ext seems to have removed or disabled this feature... > > > > So I strongly vote against Original GitX point to anything else unless this > > problem is address. I don't want to accidentally update a newer version of > > Gitx-redirect that removes this very important feature for me. > > > > IMO, let gitx be gitx and the forks be forks (yes all the disadvantages of > > contribution going to the wrong place is understandable but not at he cost > > of feature I like) > > > > There is a gitx.org (http://gitx.org) that points to some of the gitx forks > > and to the original... maybe Gitx can link to this page and give the new > > users/contributors/ an idea where to go and put some effort or create a > > page a similar page at original gitx site. > > > > -prakash > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:51:25 AM UTC-8, Pieter de Bie wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Johannes Gilger <[email protected] > > > (javascript:)> wrote: > > > > On 14/01/13 10:41, Josh Bleecher Snyder wrote: > > > >> Or Pieter could ask the community for volunteers to officially take > > > >> over > > > >> GitX, pick one, and make a public announcement, backed up by a > > > >> statement at > > > >> the top of his repo's README. > > > > > > > > Yeah, that would be a quick reference. > > > > > > I'm willing to update my github repo with a reference to another > > > repository, or even push a final update using the built-in updater of > > > GitX to download another fork. At this point, I'm not really > > > interested in resurrecting GitX myself (though I still use it daliy), > > > but might contribute once in a while if an active fork is created. > > > > > > >> > As to being "blessed", this is mostly a question of version-number > > > >> > and > > > >> > Google PageRank, isn't it? > > > >> > > > >> Bluntly: No, I don't think it is. > > > >> > > > >> Open source projects thrive under conditions that make for good > > > >> coordination. That's easiest when there's an official preferred > > > >> version, > > > >> with someone who is actively maintaining it -- even if > > > >> that maintenance consists of nothing more than having an opinion about > > > >> > > > >> direction and handling pull requests. > > > >> > > > >> Letting a thousand forks bloom, for a long time, each wandering their > > > >> own > > > >> way, is not good for anyone, users or contributors. > > > > > > I agree with this, the current situation is kinda confusing and nobody > > > is profiting from it. > > > > > > > Yeah, I'm always open. Disagreements are what mailing lists are good > > > > for. Let's wait if Pieter voices an oppinion. > > > > > > I've looked before into 'blessing' an alternate repository by > > > redirecting to it; however, in the past I haven't found a fork that > > > has been active enough for a long enough time to do this. I wanted to > > > make sure that when I hand over control, it will continue living for a > > > while instead of dying after a few weeks / months without me being > > > able to do anything about it. > > > > > > That might not be logical -- I guess any progress is better than the > > > complete absence of me for the past few years. The repo from rowanj > > > looks like it's active, so it might be best to just redirect to there. > > > > > > - Pieter > > Edward Rudd > OutOfOrder.cc (http://OutOfOrder.cc) > Skype: outoforder_cc > 317-674-3296 > > > > > >
