[StavrosK]

> The git utility has a rather well designed interface to make it easy to remember, extend, and/or customize

> (which nobody does, because who remembers the git remote syntax?

I wish we would move on from the "git has good UX" narrative, it's preventing us from actually improving the UX.

[guyzmo]

note that I did not say that git has a good UX, I said it's /rather well designed/… Maybe should I have emphazised on the /rather/, or used something stronger like /relatively/ .

But anyway, designing the command line API of my own tool took me enough headaches — and I'm still not 100% satisfied — to understand how hard it is to have a consistent and great UX for something that offer as many features as git does. Though, I'm trying my best to avoid the decade old troll about git's UX (like vs mercurial)…

In the end, what I try to make clear it's that I'm not trying to replace what git does, but cluster a bunch of repository actions tied with some service's API operations.

And I try my best to offer a pleasant UX doing so. But please, help me making it better!

[StavrosK]

I agree with you on everything, except the "easy to remember" part. Git's UI is very convoluted and inconsistent. Designing a good UI is really hard, but I see too many people fall into the "I learnt it, so it must be easy!" trap.

Congratulations for making git-repo, by the way! It looks extremely useful.

[guyzmo]

Well, for the easy to remember, I might have been presomptuous O:-)