GitHub's UX is so bad it has indeed generated a whole industry of out-of-band review tools.
When are developers going to learn that they actually have to learn and familiarize themselves with preexisting systems, instead of endlessly reinventing them, and that there is no such thing as the perfect system?
I wonder what the cost benefit analysis would be: how many developers hours have been expended building Sapling so far, vs a list of things it can do that Git cannot.
And I guess it bears repeating that I’m interested in possibility and not aesthetics.
With git one can do "everything" true, doesn't mean that I want to teach everybody first what a DAG is and how one can manipulate that using git commands, but want to have something simpler. And yeah, git became a lot better over the years, but the plumbing still shines through in many places with inconsistencies.
Having done quite a bit with both mercurial (which the sapling CLI is based on) and git, I find that the mercurial approach has a lot more sane defaults, is generally less effort for the same results, and has a lot of quality-of-life improvements — like git has the possibility of doing interactive commits with `git add -i`, but sapling's interactive-commit interface actually makes it usable.
With how well git has worked for me, I suspect I'll use it for the rest of my career.