Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who use commit -a terrify me. The value of a tool like this is it makes it trivial to review changes, stashes, etc. in a convenient way without needing to look up commands. This tool in particular is built to handle huge repos which most other front ends straight up can't. And it does it with a 1mb binary and almost no ram.
Definitely agreed. My workflow for a commit is always: git status git diff HEAD git add (usually -u) git commit I catch so many mistakes checking the diff before committing. Just seeing the code in a different context helps things pop up.
git add -p is my default. Usually what I have been up to belongs in 2-3 separate commits, each with a good commit message. For example a bug found and fixed while developing a feature always goes in its own commit.