I was hopeful but for my simple uses, it doesn't work. I use gitg in a on Ubuntu VM, also known as "GitX" on Mac. The basic UI of gitg is much easier to read and browse, the commits and details are top/bottom instead of left right. With SM, I have to expand the window a whole lot more sideways to be able to read the commits. Also with SM my name is under each commit.. but since I work mostly solo, it's added noise th…
With gitg, I click on any commit and I can quickly see the files changed by that commit, then I can click to dive and see the actual code changes.
In SM by default there is a full spread of the modified lines. That's not as helpful since I have to scroll vertically , potentially a lot in order to see what other files were edited. There does not appear to be a "collapse all" by default option.
Though even in this collapsed view it's not very informative. In gitg there is a really simple red & green bar visual to see at aglance how much changes there are in each files. Thus when you epxlore a git repo, or review what you worked on weeks before;. it's easier to get a sense of how much things go into each commit.
With that said, it's a very slick client that obviously does a lot more than Gitg/gitx... I used SM today to edit an old commit message, which was simple to do.
The merge is probably awesome but I'm not sure how it works.. what if I mess up a rebase from the commaand line, will it let me continue the operation through SM or did I have to start the rebase / misc through SM first? (I ask because typically you had to configure the merge tool in the git config so I'm not sure how SM would catch that)