Yes it is correct, dragging the head around is not particularly the best thing to do, I have been using it for a while and I can't have gitx without this feature, changing-amending the last commit is also one of the feature I use.
One of the easy thing I can do with this GitX feature is splitting a commit into different commits. I bet amend can't do that or can't do it easily. i tried to get brotherbard GitX, I am not able to find a link to the binary. -prakash On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Nathan Kinsinger wrote: > The problem is you have to be careful where you move the branch. > > For historical reference here is the discussion I had with Pieter about it: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gitx/HwP-toGQAn0 > > And here is the commit where I blocked moving the head branch: > https://github.com/brotherbard/gitx/commit/986f49f70a7890128c0c250a4d1cacbb04f700d1 > > If you are just changing the previous commit use the Amend checkbox under the > commit message and you can then stage new changes or discard existing ones. > > > --Nathan > > http://brotherbard.com/ (http://brotherbard.com/boinc/) > > > > > On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Prakash Nadar wrote: > > exactly! it should not change the working copy and thats what GitX does… > > the diff changes are put in the staging area and you can upstage and > > discard any change that you don't want to go or modify it. Think of it as > > interactive rebase. > > > > -prakash > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Edward Rudd wrote: > > > > > I simply checkout a new branch (temp) then move the master. > > > > > > Otherwise just moving the branch point is kinda "icky" as you working > > > copy wouldn't be updated. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2013, at 14:11 , Prakash Nadar wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edward Rudd > > > OutOfOrder.cc (http://OutOfOrder.cc/) > > > Skype: outoforder_cc > > > 317-674-3296 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
