> The real power comes from creating more complicated recipes.
This is my sticking point: if the power comes from the recipes, how does having a web interface help any of that? I think this is a great piece of work, but I just can't see what the advantages are over any of its competitors given that all the actual work is still being done in the same way (e.g. shell scripts).
I would add that you bring up GitHub a number of times as a comparable service, but I think that the key difference is that a number of core git features are actually implemented by GitHub (e.g. fork, log, pull) and although this all looks great it isn't the reason (IMO) why it's successful, it's because it makes a common operation easier (i.e. git repository management). I think that you would need to make common dev-op "recipes" easy to generate before the GitHub comparison is correct.
Comments
> The real power comes from creating more complicated recipes.
This is my sticking point: if the power comes from the recipes, how does having a web interface help any of that? I think this is a great piece of work, but I just can't see what the advantages are over any of its competitors given that all the actual work is still being done in the same way (e.g. shell scripts).
I would add that you bring up GitHub a number of times as a comparable service, but I think that the key difference is that a number of core git features are actually implemented by GitHub (e.g. fork, log, pull) and although this all looks great it isn't the reason (IMO) why it's successful, it's because it makes a common operation easier (i.e. git repository management). I think that you would need to make common dev-op "recipes" easy to generate before the GitHub comparison is correct.