It's a little over-simplified, I think. In migrating some technical writers to git, I thought it might be a good tool to introduce people to git.
I ran into 5 problems:
1. It spit out vague error messages, requiring repeating the action in the CLI to see git's actual, specific problem.
2. There's no option to do the initial clone via ssh, which was a problem because http was failing to download the full repository.
3. It can't do merges, so you end up needing to use the git CLI anyways.
4. It crashed repeatedly while trying to handle large (1GB) repositories. Very sluggish and occasionally unresponsive on smaller repositories, too, especially with large single commits.
5. Various minor bugs. People would ask me stuff like 'how do I discard changes?' and I'd discover they'd gotten into a state where the menu would not appear until the software was restarted. They found it difficult to know when something confusing was inherent or a bug.
I wanted to love it, because it looks like it's good for beginners. Unfortunately, being pretty is not the same as being easy to use.
I have run into 2, 3, 4, 5 as well. And in general, I often feel like the tool is not telling me what it is doing (especially while handling large repos when operations some time take considerably longer)
I have since switched to SourceTree and it is working out well so far.
MahApps.Metro has been my go to for simple interfaces. Mix it with ReactiveUI and some saner DI, and it's just awesome. Thanks very much for your work!
GitHub for windows was awful last time I tried it. Didn't follow standard desktop application HIG and was annoying to figure out, sluggish. I've had a markedly better time with SourceTree. I hate it when apps force their own design instead of following the user's window manager settings and form.
Github for windows is mind bogglingly bad. It's like staring into the sun. Nothing works like you'd expect it. They do their own thing. They should consider using a design similar to btSync. Now that's a good clean UI/UX.
I ran into 5 problems:
1. It spit out vague error messages, requiring repeating the action in the CLI to see git's actual, specific problem.
2. There's no option to do the initial clone via ssh, which was a problem because http was failing to download the full repository.
3. It can't do merges, so you end up needing to use the git CLI anyways.
4. It crashed repeatedly while trying to handle large (1GB) repositories. Very sluggish and occasionally unresponsive on smaller repositories, too, especially with large single commits.
5. Various minor bugs. People would ask me stuff like 'how do I discard changes?' and I'd discover they'd gotten into a state where the menu would not appear until the software was restarted. They found it difficult to know when something confusing was inherent or a bug.
I wanted to love it, because it looks like it's good for beginners. Unfortunately, being pretty is not the same as being easy to use.