GitUpKit is a multi-level API design so you can just use exactly what you need from each level depending on how much control you need (e.g. you can use a raw diff rendering view or a ready-to-use full-featured diff view).
Happy to answer questions if any or just visit http://forums.gitup.co/ where the GitUp community lives.
This means that writing GitUp in Swift would be a ton of overhead for very little tangible benefit.
See examples of what well known Mac developers have to go through with Swift: http://inessential.com/swiftdiary. I'd rather spend my time on building the app rather than on dealing with Swift.
I hope no-one here ever has to deal with a tree like this.
Somehow, even a moderately simple repository which has been heavily co-authored will look like garbage; even though there _are_ two distinct mainlines that you can follow.
One of the best visualizations for revision control, IMHO, is fossil's timeline view:
https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?y=ci
It's clear, compact, and tries to maintain different lineages as straight lines. git tools, by contrast, just shift everything on right.
Not even github's network view is really usable, since the network simplification they perform destroys the locality of the changes.
At first I didn't like the idea of including a web interface and wiki, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. Having a change log for the wiki would be helpful, and I'm assuming it's zero cost if you don't use it.
Including an integrated bug tracking seems like an ingenious idea, though. Any idea how well it works out on real projects?
+1
The first parent history (the spines going down the left side) contains primarily topic branch merges. If you look at the topic branches, they're all completely linear history.
The linear history in each topic branch is carefully constructed by Junio Hamano, Git's maintainer, as commits typically get into git.git via patches, not through direct commits + merges.
This is not the same as the normal ugliness that people are used to seeing when working with larger teams that abuse "git pull" and create ugly merges in their history.
The resulting history from this approach is more carefully curated and elegant. There are lots of topics and contributors so the resulting history naturally contains lots of merges. The viewport is only so large. If we pan and zoom over to a different area, we'd probably see some pretty trees.
If you're curious, you can read more about how the branches are managed here:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/howto/m...
