Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement ungit operation on atom tree view #12

Closed
jung-kim opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Implement ungit operation on atom tree view #12

jung-kim opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 4 comments

Comments

@jung-kim
Copy link
Owner

jung-kim commented Jul 3, 2014

atom tree view effectively highlights the items that are new or modified compared to repo copy.

It would be better if atom-ungit is further integrated with atom by right click on files and see git operations such as revert, stash and so on.

Difficulty of this issue is that due to atom being highly customizable aspect, it is possible that users are not using "tree view" plugin and use another plugin to see the directory structure. I don't know if there are better ways to solve this other than imply this feature of atom-ungit works with "tree view" plugin only.

@ibnesayeed
Copy link
Contributor

I am having hard time deciding if this feature is related to Ungit or in fact just the Git. If it is later, then a separate package will be better suited I guess. :)

@jung-kim
Copy link
Owner Author

jung-kim commented Jul 6, 2014

Hmm, I guess this depends on how to define Ungit and scope of this plugin. Is ungit simply a git wrapper that provides pretty face to git? or should ungit to be version control that complies with git's rule and be more independent?

I'm not sure what is the right answer or whether or not if this is the right time to ask this question. But it would be fantastic if Ungit was able to do this using ungit protocol which may not use git in the future.

@ibnesayeed
Copy link
Contributor

That discussion is interesting, but it is not going to happen anytime soon. Even if it does, I would imagine a separate package will do better. Keeping things modular, small, and simple will improve the maintainability. :)

@jung-kim
Copy link
Owner Author

jung-kim commented Jul 8, 2014

I agree that timing is too far away, even if it were to happen.

@jung-kim jung-kim closed this as completed Jul 8, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants