[hsbauauvhabzb]

I don’t care for issue tracking, but I do like the usability of diffs and merging in web ui apps - my primary job is to look at code not write it (meaning I’d fail basic git merge questions) but I’ve also found out the hard way that just because I know my way around a shell doesn’t mean I can force my views on the people my company hires, and I own the company.

[kroltan]

I do genuinely appreciate that, but that's the point: the graphical clients that do visual diffing and merging like the ones I listed all work with a bare repo as the remote.

Heck I think even the Github Desktop application also works with non-Github repositories, and they would be the only ones that would have any interest in locking people in.

Unless you mean specifically the UX of having a URL you can copy to a specific line of a specific commit in a repository, which indeed is not possible without a standard URI scheme (which does not exist) or a web client.

[mejutoco]

I get your point. At the same time I find it funny how Linus was checking patches via email deciding what gets merged for the linux kernel. Now, every service needs all the replicated enterprisey festures.

It is not a personal criticism to you. I find it interesting git gave us all this efficiency and the enterprise removes it by adding complexity back because employees supposedly cannot be bothered to learn their tools (or cannot be mandated) or plainly prefer a nicer ui. Not a crime, but I can see how big corporations become inefficient with this type of thinking, when appliend to hundreds of tools and processes.