21–30 of 143 posts
A very satisfied user. As a (neo)vim user, I did suffer from magit envy but at the end, Lazygit takes care of all my needs. I prefer the UX (Just a personal preference). Kudos to the dev for the wonderful tool PS: There is also lazydocker by same person https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazydocker
Magit is another popular alternative for emacs https://magit.vc I wonder if anyone has gone from lazygit to magit or the other way around. As someone who uses emacs for my day to day dev work I can't see myself changing.
If there is one thing that terrifies me it's using Git, or any source control, from the command line. No matter how long I've been in this industry, I just can't get cozy with doing a lot of heavy lifting in any shell environment. Give me the GUI all day every day.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
Since using a GUI has inevitably required me to learn CLI in depth, and adds the complexity of figuring out what the hell the GUI actually did because of course it doesn't tell you, I'm basically 100% CLI as well.
If there is one thing that terrifies me it's using Git, or any source control, from the command line. No matter how long I've been in this industry, I just can't get cozy with doing a lot of heavy lifting in any shell environment. Give me the GUI all day every day.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
As far as I have seen (I prefer the cmdline myself) Git UIs usually have all sorts of features to select what changes should go into what commits down to single text lines. IMHO this sort of fine grained 'commit management' would be the only reason to use a git UI over what the command line offers.
UIs can be nicer though for rewriting / making finer-grained splits than the hunks that -p decides on, definitely agreed there. I have broken out a UI just to simplify staging some gnarly commits. GUIs are also often nicer for understanding and resolving nasty three-way merge conflicts.
If there is one thing that terrifies me it's using Git, or any source control, from the command line. No matter how long I've been in this industry, I just can't get cozy with doing a lot of heavy lifting in any shell environment. Give me the GUI all day every day.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
VSCode’s GUI handles most of what I use -p for, though if I need to use `s` inside -p I drop to the integrated terminal. Not sure if the gui has an equivalent but I haven’t noticed it.
Stash on the other hand isn’t missing anything I care about: the gui lets you name stashes if you want, apply latest, etc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
As far as I have seen (I prefer the cmdline myself) Git UIs usually have all sorts of features to select what changes should go into what commits down to single text lines. IMHO this sort of fine grained 'commit management' would be the only reason to use a git UI over what the command line offers.
but for me a bigger reason to prefer a git UI is that I can actually see the graph. I can do things like drag branches between commit nodes. I find this so much easier and safer than the cli
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
Literally every git GUI I've used has screwed up a git repository at some point, requiring relatively-advanced CLI use to untangle it. They're wildly untrustworthy IMO. They also almost never perform reasonably on truly large repos, aside from gitk. Since using a GUI has inevitably required me to learn CLI in depth, and adds the complexity of figuring out what the hell the GUI actually did because of course it doesn'…
If there is one thing that terrifies me it's using Git, or any source control, from the command line. No matter how long I've been in this industry, I just can't get cozy with doing a lot of heavy lifting in any shell environment. Give me the GUI all day every day.
If there is one thing that terrifies me it's using Git, or any source control, from the command line. No matter how long I've been in this industry, I just can't get cozy with doing a lot of heavy lifting in any shell environment. Give me the GUI all day every day.
Exactly the opposite for me. I absolutely do not trust GUIs to do the right thing. I don't trust text area to use correct line endings consistently across platforms, I don't trust them to be up to date with new options for `commit` or `checkout`, they never show examples what result will be (--dry-run). None GUI is ever up to date with documentation and contains all functionality which I can autocomplete with [tab][t…
I cannot imagine using git and only being able to push entire files...
-
And for the record, I use Sublime Merge and it does a great job mapping to terminal commands.
Hover over any button and you get the exact git command it will run. It doesn't mess with your tree directly, every action maps to a normal human readable git command.
If you want to make a stash with untracked files for example, you just hit the arrow next to "Stash" and get a dropdown with command line args and descriptions for what they do. Sublime Merge will then run it with the exact args you entered, show you the exact CLI command it used, and will show you the exact output.
For me Sublime Merge is strictly better than a terminal. I'm comfortable with terminal commands but it's the terminal with a very nice diff view, clean graphs, easier text editing, etc. I never have any ambiguity about what it's going to do.