I decided that GitHub would be a convenient place for my POV-Ray
contributions, because I would need a GitHub account anyway to lodge
complaints about the fine work being done by the POV-Ray developers.  I
could upload my Object Collection modules in one folder, my non-OC
contributions in another, and heck, maybe a third area for projects
unrelated to POV-Ray.  It would be an ideal way to centralize my
contributions, rather than having them scattered all over the news server.

I very quickly found out that GitHub does not support nested
organization!  But it does allow sub-folders, so I uploaded each module
into its own sub-folder.

But that didn't solve the problem.  GitHub has no means of downloading a
single folder; users would have to download the whole repository, even
for just one module.  I don't want to put users through that.  And
branches (and I presume forks) can only be made off the entire
repository.  Even worse, I cannot tag individual folders; the whole
repository must be tagged for every module update.  Basically, all
pretense of folders aside, all my disparate modules can only be treated
as a single unit.

It appears that the only clean way to manage modules individually is to
have a separate repository for each module, in a completely flat
structure.  This seems to me like an unwieldy way to store and publish
my projects.

I DuckDuckGo'd around to see how other people managed this problem.
Seems an awful lot of people have the same complaint.  One suggestion
was to keep repositories in "Organizations," so I looked into that.

Nope.  There is a reason I'm a broken cog who cannot make it in my field
of expertise, rather than a wealthy businessman.  I suck at
organization, and I have no management skills.  But to use a GitHub
Organization, you basically have to manage a distributed business
enterprise, complete with security and user classes!  I need a simpler
solution, one that allows any average Jo(e) to download a module without
having to login or ask me for permission.

I'm finding it very difficult to believe that people who could create
and manage such an elaborate and sophisticated enterprise such as GitHub
could have overlooked something as simple as hierarchically organized
projects!  Am I missing something?

Is there some simple way to organize repositories on GitHub?  One that
doesn't require an engineering or management degree to understand and
navigate?  Or do I have to content myself with a choice between randomly
scattered repositories and a single repository in which modules cannot
be treated modularly?

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.08.2021 um 22:33 schrieb Cousin Ricky:

> I very quickly found out that GitHub does not support nested
> organization!  But it does allow sub-folders, so I uploaded each module
> into its own sub-folder.

This is not a matter specific to GitHub, but rather the underlying 
architecture, i.e. Git.

As Git had originally been designed just to manage the source of the 
Linux kernel, support for sub-projects hadn't been part of the design goals.

However, Git seems to have since grown not just one, not two, but three 
ways of managing subprojects; see 
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SubprojectSupport for some 
introduction.

I've never had much contact with these, and only one variant so far 
(can't even recall which ones; Submodules, I think, but I can't be 
sure), so I have no recommendation which of these will suit your needs 
best. But at lest it might give you a few buzzwords for further searches 
on the internerds.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:52:29 +0200, clipka wrote:

> I've never had much contact with these, and only one variant so far
> (can't even recall which ones; Submodules, I think, but I can't be
> sure), so I have no recommendation which of these will suit your needs
> best. But at lest it might give you a few buzzwords for further searches
> on the internerds.

Yeah, I was thinking that submodules is the way to handle this.  It's not 
too difficult to use, but does require a little work to understand it.  
(I haven't done that for years myself)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-17 4:52 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> 
> As Git had originally been designed just to manage the source of the
> Linux kernel, support for sub-projects hadn't been part of the design
> goals.
> 
> However, Git seems to have since grown not just one, not two, but three
> ways of managing subprojects; see
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/SubprojectSupport for some
> introduction.

Thanks, I did see that submodule support was added to Git at some
point--it looks like around 2007-08.  The wrapper feature looks like it
would meet my online needs, but I suppose submodules could work.

The problem is that GitHub does not appear to support any of these
capabilities.  All searches on GitHub wrappers yield only repositories
of wrappers tailored for specific software, having nothing to do with
Git.  Searches on submodules yields lots of user discussion about Git
commands, but no documentation from GitHub, and no indication that
submodules are even applicable to GitHub.  I do not need or want offline
Git capabilities; I already have my projects organized locally in
folders, and to bring in an SCM would be more effort that it's worth at
this time.  I want organization on GitHub, and even if I did reorganize
my local POV-Ray directory tree to use Git, I see no indication that
this organization could be uploaded intact.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I decided that GitHub would be a convenient place for my POV-Ray
> contributions, because I would need a GitHub account anyway to lodge
> complaints about the fine work being done by the POV-Ray developers.  I
> could upload my Object Collection

That would be "Objection Collection."  :D

> I'm finding it very difficult to believe that people who could create
> and manage such an elaborate and sophisticated enterprise such as GitHub
> could have overlooked something as simple as hierarchically organized
> projects!  Am I missing something?

Didn't Microsoft / Bill "Gates of Hell" gobble that up?

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ... organize repositories ...

not sure if this describes you(r situation), from the fossil docs: "ii. Single
developer with multiple subprojects"

<https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/whyusefossil.wiki>


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.08.2021 um 00:17 schrieb Cousin Ricky:

> The problem is that GitHub does not appear to support any of these
> capabilities.  All searches on GitHub wrappers yield only repositories
> of wrappers tailored for specific software, having nothing to do with
> Git.  Searches on submodules yields lots of user discussion about Git
> commands, but no documentation from GitHub, and no indication that
> submodules are even applicable to GitHub.  I do not need or want offline
> Git capabilities;

While the GitHub web interface alone may be sufficient for an occasional 
small contribution here and there (by now; even that hadn't always been 
the case) in which only a single file is changed; but for anything 
beyond that, I'd really recommend using a proper Git UI on your machine 
(which may just be the `git` command-line interface, or a 3rd party 
GUI), which (by Git's design) invariably also means a having local 
repository.

Of course not all UIs support advanced Git features, but the more 
advanced ones go far beyond what GitHub has implemented in their web 
interface (or their own rudimentary Git UI called GitHub Desktop)

My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks 
behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support 
both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree 
from the GUI).

> I already have my projects organized locally in
> folders, and to bring in an SCM would be more effort that it's worth at
> this time.

An SCM is exactly what Git is, so I'm rather puzzled?!


> I want organization on GitHub, and even if I did reorganize
> my local POV-Ray directory tree to use Git, I see no indication that
> this organization could be uploaded intact.

If you "upload" the stuff (or "commit" and "push", as the technical 
terms would be) using some arbitrary Git interface that supports 
submodules/subtrees, that hierarchy _will_ end up intact on the GitHub repo.

Whether that hierarchy is also exposed to the user is another matter; 
but I recommend that you see for yourself.

Here's an example of how GitHub themselves use _submodules_ in one of 
their own projects, `linguist`, a tool they use to detect the 
programming language of files in a repository; each folder in its 
`vendor/grammars` directory is actually a submodule:

https://github.com/github/linguist/tree/master/vendor/grammars

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Am 18.08.2021 um 00:17 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> 
>> [...]  I do not need or want offline
>> Git capabilities;
> 
> While the GitHub web interface alone may be sufficient for an occasional
> small contribution here and there (by now; even that hadn't always been
> the case) in which only a single file is changed; but for anything
> beyond that, I'd really recommend using a proper Git UI on your machine
> (which may just be the `git` command-line interface, or a 3rd party
> GUI), which (by Git's design) invariably also means a having local
> repository.

Would I have to uproot my existing local directory tree?

>> I already have my projects organized locally in
>> folders, and to bring in an SCM would be more effort that it's worth at
>> this time.
> 
> An SCM is exactly what Git is, so I'm rather puzzled?!

I mean I don't need an SCM on my local machine.  I vaguely recall having
to use one on the job many years ago, and I seem to have spent as much
time wrestling with the SCM as I did writing code.  They confuse the
hell out of me, which would seem to defeat their own purpose.

>> I want organization on GitHub, and even if I did reorganize
>> my local POV-Ray directory tree to use Git, I see no indication that
>> this organization could be uploaded intact.
> 
> If you "upload" the stuff (or "commit" and "push", as the technical
> terms would be) using some arbitrary Git interface that supports
> submodules/subtrees, that hierarchy _will_ end up intact on the GitHub
> repo.
> 
> Whether that hierarchy is also exposed to the user is another matter;
> but I recommend that you see for yourself.

The user's view is precisely what I'm concerned about.

> Here's an example of how GitHub themselves use _submodules_ in one of
> their own projects, `linguist`, a tool they use to detect the
> programming language of files in a repository; each folder in its
> `vendor/grammars` directory is actually a submodule:
> 
> https://github.com/github/linguist/tree/master/vendor/grammars

That looks like what I'm looking for.  How do I actually do it?  Is
there a gentle introduction somewhere to how it's done, because GitHub
has only the barest tutorial on how to use its UI, and everything else I
can find, whether in GitHub's docs, GitHub's blog, or third party
instructions, just dumps me into the deep end of the pool.  I seem to
lack an overall conceptual framework of what's going on.

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
> 
> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> from the GUI).

The Web page that recommended GitHub Organizations pointed this out, but
also said that BitBucket's UI was more complicated another Git UI (which
I can't recall at the moment).

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.08.2021 um 18:58 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> On 2021-08-18 4:44 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
>>
>> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
>> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
>> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
>> from the GUI).
> 
> The Web page that recommended GitHub Organizations pointed this out, but
> also said that BitBucket's UI was more complicated another Git UI (which
> I can't recall at the moment).

One thing you really should try to get off your mind is the idea that 
Git repository hosting service == Git desktop user interface.

Those really are two _entirely_ different things.

You can use Atlassian's desktop user interface (Sourcetree) with a 
repository hosted on GitHub. Just like you can use GitHub Inc.'s desktop 
user interface (called GitHub Desktop) with a repository hosted on 
BitBucket (or at least you should be; I haven't actually tested it).

I never liked the web interface of Atlassian's "BitBucket" Git/Mercurial 
reposiory hosting service.

I do like Atlassian's "Sourcetree" Git/Mercurial desktop UI.

I do like the web interface of GitHub Inc.'s "GitHub" repository hosting 
service (even though I agree that there's still quite some room for 
improvement).

I don't like GitHub Inc.'s "GitHub Desktop" desktop UI at all.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:44:04 +0200, clipka wrote:

> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> from the GUI).

I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and 
for even those who do, it is very useful.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:21:26 -0400, Bald Eagle wrote:

> Didn't Microsoft / Bill "Gates of Hell" gobble that up?

Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for years.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 21:45:27 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:21:26 -0400, Bald Eagle wrote:
> 
>> Didn't Microsoft / Bill "Gates of Hell" gobble that up?
> 
> Gates hasn't been at Microsoft for years.

(But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2021 11:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and
> for even those who do, it is very useful.

Thirded. I've used sourcetree in my day job and it's a good tool. Don't 
use it anymore as we shifted to SmartGit, but they are roughly equivalent.

The only time I don't use a GUI for git is for basic change management 
on the povray server. For that the CLI is fine.

While a UI isn't a requirement for using git, having one makes managing 
more complex projects way easier.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)

Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft, 
they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github, 
which makes perfect sense when you think of it.

Some of us will remember the time that SourceForge was the place for 
open-source projects to host public repositories, and will also know 
what happened when SF got sold to someone who didn't really care about 
software but just wanted to make a quick buck regardless of the damage done.

They started used techniques such as dark design patterns to trick 
people who just wanted to download the latest version of, say, GIMP to 
instead download something else entirely (I know of a few people who got 
trapped by this and ended up with PUP's on their systems). They even 
went as far as wrapping some projects legitimate installer inside their 
*own* installer which would install junkware before running the 'real' 
installer.

These tactics quickly *nuked* sourceforge's reputation and developers 
abandoned the site in droves. It has never recovered from this (and 
never will, even though it's under new ownership).

See 
https://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/

if you're interested in more background on what happened to SF.

Now someone may wonder how this relates to a discussion about GitHub and 
its ownership, and my answer is that it relates a *lot*. GitHub isn't 
unique; it's not created or run by the makers of Git. it's just a 
open-source software hosting site - like SourceForge is/was.

Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had 
become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host 
(CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it 
down).

GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While 
it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology 
(Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project 
just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and 
would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn 
investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

Just as importantly they're *also* so cashed up they they are unlikely 
to ever say "we need a few extra dollars, let's sell GitHub" - meaning 
GH is unlikely to ever end up in the hands of anyone who wants to make a 
quick buck regardless of the damage done to the reputation of the site 
(which is what happened to SourceForge).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.08.2021 um 04:41 schrieb Chris Cason:

> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While 
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology 
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project 
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and 
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn 
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

As a matter of fact, Microsoft would jeopardize even more than their 
$7bn infestment: GitHub is their test. They are being watched very 
closely by the OSS community. If they'd screw this up, they'd burn not 
only the reputation of GitHub, but also the reputation of everything 
else that's Microsoft, as far as the OSS community goes.

They had been the bad guys in the past, and have been making huge 
efforts to get out of that corner and build a bit of trust with the OSS 
community. Any slip-up with GitHub, and all that hard work would be lost 
in an instant.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)
>
> Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft,
> they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github,
> which makes perfect sense when you think of it.
> ...
> Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had
> become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host
> (CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it
> down).
>
> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

while I do wear glasses, could not find rose-tinted ones to fit..  :-)

<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/29/microsofts-github-has-become-magnet-for-thorny-issues-like-riaa.html>

if Microsoft had wanted to be "benign", or even simply "straight", they could
have, for instance, endowed a foundation set up for the purpose, or paid cash.
instead (so I read) the deal was done in shares, making GitHub now a
"stakeholder" interested in Microsoft's future.

and what about <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot>?  will not,
particularly for younger, new users (<30 yrs), a "recommended", quick,
menu-selected "solution" to some bug/coding problem lead, in the end, to greater
homogeneity, less individual "expression"?  (anyone looking at the world with
open eyes must appreciate that industrial-scale mono-cultures, whether
agri-sector or social, tend to damage the very (eco)systems which they exploit
-- for "stakeholder"s advantage, only)

two cents and all that.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:44:04 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
> > My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> > behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> > both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> > from the GUI).
>
> I'd second that.  Sourcetree is amazing for those who don't like CLI, and
> for even those who do, it is very useful.
>
>
>
> --
> "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
> besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Nice to see what people use. I had picked git Cola so far. because of one (LX)QT
based linux Machine

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> while I do wear glasses, could not find rose-tinted ones to fit..  :-)

.....

(anyone looking at the world with
> open eyes must appreciate that industrial-scale mono-cultures, whether
> agri-sector or social, tend to damage the very (eco)systems which they exploit
> -- for "stakeholder"s advantage, only)

And at that juncture, one should look for historical trends, commonalities,
patterns, and an abundance of "unrelated" "coincidences".

I have education, experience, and imagination that is increasingly guided whilst
taking the Long View by "Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it
tries to silence good".

Take a look at Big Tech and what they do and how they got the power to do it.

Now extrapolate.

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-18 3:06 AM (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> not sure if this describes you(r situation), from the fossil docs: "ii. Single
> developer with multiple subprojects"
> 
> <https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/whyusefossil.wiki>

That doesn't tell me much, nor does it seem intended to sell Fossil over
Git.

It should be evident that I have no feel whatsoever for what makes a
good or a bad SCM/VCS service (other than whether they push junkware on
your users).  But I've already made an announcement in p.o-c, so you
might say that I am "committed" to GitHub.  And given my historical
difficulties trying to grok such systems, I feel safer with what others
are doing.

Post a reply to this message

hi,


Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 3:06 AM (-4), jr wrote:
> >
> > not sure if this describes you(r situation), from the fossil docs: "ii. Single
> > developer with multiple subprojects"
> >
> > {...}
>
> That doesn't tell me much, nor does it seem intended to sell Fossil over
> Git.

sell?  no.  as the page says, any scm is better than none, and you get enough
overview to decide whether it's worth your while to find out more.

btw, there _is_ a page detailing how move data between those s/wares:
<https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/inout.wiki>


> It should be evident that I have no feel whatsoever for what makes a
> good or a bad SCM/VCS service (other than whether they push junkware on
> your users).

no "good or bad".  just suits yr way of working, or does not.


>  But I've already made an announcement in p.o-c, so you
> might say that I am "committed" to GitHub.  And given my historical
> difficulties trying to grok such systems, I feel safer with what others
> are doing.

and I think that a pretty good reason, knowing you can find 'git' users here, in
case of .. difficulty.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 12:41:10 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:

> On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)
> 
> Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft,
> they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github,
> which makes perfect sense when you think of it.

Yeah, they do seem to have done that.  I've also never been a big fan of 
Microsoft (though I now live in the Seattle area, and I know a lot of 
people who used to work there, and a few, I think, who still do).  The 
company's changed a lot since Ballmer left.  He was a big part of the 
last vestiges of Gates' time there.

> Some of us will remember the time that SourceForge was the place for
> open-source projects to host public repositories, and will also know
> what happened when SF got sold to someone who didn't really care about
> software but just wanted to make a quick buck regardless of the damage
> done.
>
> [...]
>
> See
> https://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-
software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/
> if you're interested in more background on what happened to SF.

Oh, yes, I had forgotten about that.  Before SourceForge, it was 
freshmeat.net, but that was more an aggregator than a host for the 
software, as I recall.

> Now someone may wonder how this relates to a discussion about GitHub and
> its ownership, and my answer is that it relates a *lot*. GitHub isn't
> unique; it's not created or run by the makers of Git. it's just a
> open-source software hosting site - like SourceForge is/was.
> 
> Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had
> become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host
> (CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it
> down).
> 
> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good
> will'.
> 
> Just as importantly they're *also* so cashed up they they are unlikely
> to ever say "we need a few extra dollars, let's sell GitHub" - meaning
> GH is unlikely to ever end up in the hands of anyone who wants to make a
> quick buck regardless of the damage done to the reputation of the site
> (which is what happened to SourceForge).

One friend who used to work at Microsoft described them years ago as 
"circling the drain - but they have a lot of money, so it's going to take 
a long time for them to disappear" (words to that effect).  But I think 
Nadela has embraced open source a lot more (Microsoft has historically 
contributed a fair amount to the Linux Kernel, actually).  Back in the 
day when Novell bought Ximian (who created the open-source Mono project - 
an OSS implementation of .NET), there was a lot of concern about 
Microsoft suing Novell over intellectual property around .NET (I was 
there - worked for Novell for about 8 years, starting right before they 
acquired SUSE in 2003, and leaving when Attachmate bought them in 2011).  
Now Miguel de Icaza is on the board of the .NET foundation, and Nat 
Friedman is the CEO of Github (so he works for Microsoft).

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
> from the GUI).

Do they have a version for GNU/Linux?  I can't find one on their website.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
>
> Do they have a version for GNU/Linux?  I can't find one on their website.

They don't, the only supported systems are Windows and Mac.
You might have a look at Git Extensions, it should run on GNU/Linux with mono:
https://gitextensions.github.io/

It also has a nice interface (even if the SourceTree one is better).
I am using it on Windows, I have abandoned SourceTree as it used to become
extremely slow after some upgrade cycles, and Git Extensions functionality is
more than enough for my use.

Submodules are supported; subtrees, however, are not.

By the way, I'm back here after very very long time and it's very nice to see
POV-Ray progress and the new beta!
Thank you all for the efforts put in this project!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 23:38:16 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> My favorite tool of choice is Atlassian Sourcetree (from the folks
>> behind BitBucket, an alternative to GitHub), which does seem to support
>> both submodules and subtrees (you can add a new submodule or subtree
>> from the GUI).
> 
> Do they have a version for GNU/Linux?  I can't find one on their
> website.

Sadly, they do not.



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 2021-08-20-2021 5:31 AM, Mr wrote:
> 
> Nice to see what people use. I had picked git Cola so far. because of one (LX)QT
> based linux Machine

Git-Cola is in my repositories, so I'll take a look at that, when (if?)
I can get my new computer stabilized.

Post a reply to this message