> Doing a simple commit with git is just git commit. What am I missing here? ... > ... These aren't more complex on the command line, they're just done differe

> Doing a simple commit with git is just git commit. What am I missing here? ... > ... These aren't more complex on the command line, they're just done differently. The process I outlined was a series of steps which were all part of what I'd consider an average commit (not necessarily "simple"). Invoking `thg ci` I could cherry pick lines, edit files as I'm reviewing the diffs, shelve away others, all within seconds, without shifting context. There isn't a single "flag" to read about which makes typing all those commands out necessarily faster. Simple commits, I will frequently just do `hg ci` and be done. But if I'm doing a bunch of manipulation, I have click the hunks I want, commit, merge and push, all in much fewer seconds than it would be possible to type the equivalent set of commands. I consider the overall job "tell the computer what I want, as efficiently as possible". For some specific tasks, a mouse just is a better method than a keyboard. I think it's good for complex multi-purpose tools to offer multiple UIs, allowing the user to get work done using the most efficient method tailored to their specific task at hand. That said, I think having them based on the CLI, and using it to trigger a gui, is a far superior meta flow than having a gui trigger a cli just never seems to work out.