gitx-rowanj: add cask

[ghost]

No description provided.

[nanoxd]

@phinze @vitorgalvao @fanquake This cask seems distinct enough from other versions (gitx, gitx-l) to warrant it's own version. Any objections?

[vitorgalvao]

Why is it named GitX-Roawanj, when the app is called GitX-Dev? Looking at it now, it seems we had the wrong idea when evaluating the other pull request for GitX-Dev — it’s a fork (so, a different app), and not a different version of the same app.

I say we close the other pull request and accept this one, but switching the name to gitx-dev, instead. Also, seeing as url doesn’t seem to point to a specific version, this cask should use version 'latest' and no_checksum.

[nanoxd]

@darinmorrison Can you change the filename/class name for the file to comply with @vitorgalvao's suggestions?

[ghost]

Why is it named GitX-Roawanj, when the app is called GitX-Dev? Looking at it now, it seems we had the wrong idea when evaluating the other pull request for GitX-Dev — it’s a fork (so, a different app), and not a different version of the same app.

@vitorgalvao I named the cask gitx-rowanj, rather than gitx-dev, because the former is a more informative, meaningful, and semantically distinct name.

There have probably been half a dozen popular forks of GitX at point or another. They've more or less all remained in "development" mode (as opposed to release or maintenance) for perpetuity. Given that context, the name "GitX-Dev" is potentially confusing to anyone who doesn't already know that it refers to a particular fork—it could just as easily refer to a particular branch of any one of the other forks. And it looks like that's essentially already happened in the other PR.

Referring to the fork relative to its author/maintainer is an easy way to avoid ambiguity. Indeed, several places here and there—within the documentation, through various links, and on the website— refer to the app as GitX-dev (rowanj's fork) or similarly. Other places still refer to it simply as GitX without the '-dev' (e.g., in the link "rowanj.github.io/gitx").

Having said that, I'm not still particularly motivated to push for one name over the other. It's easy enough to change locally if I find it bothersome. However, I do believe—in cases like this where there is ambiguity—that it is better to opt for the more informative and meaningful choice as a matter of principle.

Perhaps this serves as an instance where cask aliases might be useful. I have no idea if something like that is in the cards for brew-cask, but I believe homebrew already does something like it (i.e., multiple names) for certain formulas.

Also, seeing as url doesn’t seem to point to a specific version, this cask should use version 'latest' and no_checksum.

I don't really think that makes sense in this case although it might appear to at first glance.

At any given point in time, the URL does point to a specific release version—in particular, the version most recently included in the release notes.

Although technically the URL does refer to the "latest" release version, the releases are well defined—implying the hash won't change frequently enough to justify disabling the checksum.

And there's also the releases page. The URLs of the binaries on that page do contain the version number and the hash of the latest non-testing release matches that of the current cask URL.

We could switch to using the URLs of the binaries on the release page if it's important enough.

[ghost]

Even the releases page is inconsistent about the use of '-dev'. The pre-releases are named GitX-testing-… rather than GitX-dev-… and the app is just called GitX.app.

[nanoxd]

At any given point in time, the URL does point to a specific release version—in particular, the version most recently included in the release notes.

That can be said about any .dmg/.zip file. If the url contains no visible version number, we mark it as latest. In order to placate sha1 errors, we ignore checksums when the file located at the url is subject to change. There is a discussion regarding what the community wants more of at #1021. As maintainers, we have favored casks with a non-versioned url. This reduces the amount of maintenance required on constantly updated applications.

Perhaps this serves as an instance where cask aliases might be useful. I have no idea if something like that is in the cards for brew-cask, but I believe homebrew already does something like it (i.e., multiple names) for certain formulas.

We love pull-requests and discussion surrounding new feature requests! 🎉

Even the releases page is inconsistent about the use of '-dev'. The pre-releases are named GitX-testing-… rather than GitX-dev-… and the app is just called GitX.app.

The releases page is not inconsistent, it follows the standard pattern of releasing new/untested features on a testing branch until the feature is deemed things-are-not-going-to-explode 💣 production-ready and placed in a numbered build.

I named the cask gitx-rowanj, rather than gitx-dev, because the former is a more informative, meaningful, and semantically distinct name.

As a non-user of gitx, I had no idea of the numerous forks available. @vitorgalvao We have the laullon fork named gitx-l.rb, it wouldn't hurt to keep the name as is.

[vitorgalvao]

@nanoxd I agree with everything in your post.

[nanoxd]

@darinmorrison Can you change the version to latest, remove the sha1, and add no_checksum?

[phinze]

I'm on a pull-closing frenzy, so I took the liberty of modifying the cask as everybody agreed on. Good discussion here! 💡 📣