4 ms·

I will never understand why people use a UI for git. 99% of the time people who do that don't understand how git works. When something deviates from the normal

I will never understand why people use a UI for git. 99% of the time people who do that don't understand how git works. When something deviates from the normal workflow they struggle.

SQueeeeeL 7y ago
Never understand? I mostly use Git CLI, and it's a big pain. Weird terminology, needing to memorize branch names for easy use, differences between staged and pushed commits. And when you mess your incantation you ripped from SO up you get errors with strange terminology. I understand it's benefits and use it, but older simpler versioning systems like SVN had their own benefits.
- pizza234 7y ago
  While there are definitely UX problems, the following aren't: - needing to memorize branch names for easy use: there is tab completion for this; - differences between staged and pushed commits: I'm not sure what you refer here. the closest concept to the "stage" term is "staged changes". this is by design; the idea is that while one applies changes within a single commit, some are definitive, some are evolving; for this workflow, it's very convenient. if one doesn't want, they can just add all and commit (preferrably, with a single alias ;-)). The "most extensive" Git UX problem is possibly the excess of functionality given to the `checkout` command, which in fact is being split. (I don't imply that Git UX is good, though)
dmix 7y ago
It's only an alternative interface... not much different pushing a button you don't understand than copy/pasting some commands.
trevor-e 7y ago
I think that's just your own personal bias on the matter – 99%, really? To me (IMO), Git is something that's inherently visual and not really suited to a CLI, it has nothing to do with not understanding how Git works under the hood.
- Florin_Andrei 7y ago
  > Git is something that's inherently visual It absolutely is. The whole "branch" paradigm evokes topology. The visual structure of the thing you're working with ought to be made clear to you, the user. If a GUI has trouble when the workflow deviates from normalcy, it's just not powerful enough. That being said, there will always be users who prefer the command line, and that's totally fine.
  - Myrmornis 7y ago
    Although git supports it, one doesn't normally need to use complex branch tree topologies that require visualization.
iaml 7y ago
I use git UI because I want to have a good graphical overview of the repository. Really helpful on larger repos.
- JollyGoodFellow 7y ago
  Agreed. Been using SourceTree for years. Still use CLI for various tasks but a UI is extremely helpful to: - visualise the project in its current state which may spread across several feature branches all coming in and out of master - code preview (hugely valuable) across one or more files - see your branches - see your stashes - remotes, etc - all of the above across multiple, simultaneous, projects. Large projects can be difficult to manage if you don't have context and oversight, which is harder to obtain from the CLI. Of course we can get this information from the prompt but it is much more difficult to get the information in an easier-to-consume fashion.
Mirioron 7y ago
And if they didn't use a GUI they either wouldn't use git at all or they would struggle with that too.
petepete 7y ago
To be honest, staging individual hunks without a UI is a pain. I use Tig (a TUI) just for this.
- mdtusz 7y ago
  `git add -p` I use Tig as well, but more often than not the git cli is sufficient.
  - petepete 7y ago
    Yeah it's entirely possible but Tig makes it easy and I can do it in a fraction of the time.
saagarjha 7y ago
Git is well suited to graphical interfaces, since it's quite useful to visualize the commit graph and for viewing diffs. The fact that the git command line tool is quite awful makes this even more of a no-brainer.
40four 7y ago
I get what you're saying, but not that they necessarily don't understand git. I guess it's just personal preference. I don't know why, but I've always felt uncomfortable using git in a GUI, but I know a lot of people who love it. For some reason, anytime I try to use a GUI, I don't feel like I'm really doing git, if that makes any sense. Also, I've personally never felt the need to see the branches visually. And if I do get the itch to 'see' them, nothing a quick git log --oneline --graph cant fix!

I will never understand why people use a UI for git. 99% of the time people who do that don't understand how git works. When something deviates from the normal workflow they struggle.

SQueeeeeL 7y ago

Never understand? I mostly use Git CLI, and it's a big pain. Weird terminology, needing to memorize branch names for easy use, differences between staged and pushed commits. And when you mess your incantation you ripped from SO up you get errors with strange terminology. I understand it's benefits and use it, but older simpler versioning systems like SVN had their own benefits.

pizza234 7y ago
While there are definitely UX problems, the following aren't: - needing to memorize branch names for easy use: there is tab completion for this; - differences between staged and pushed commits: I'm not sure what you refer here. the closest concept to the "stage" term is "staged changes". this is by design; the idea is that while one applies changes within a single commit, some are definitive, some are evolving; for this workflow, it's very convenient. if one doesn't want, they can just add all and commit (preferrably, with a single alias ;-)). The "most extensive" Git UX problem is possibly the excess of functionality given to the `checkout` command, which in fact is being split. (I don't imply that Git UX is good, though)

dmix 7y ago

It's only an alternative interface... not much different pushing a button you don't understand than copy/pasting some commands.

trevor-e 7y ago

I think that's just your own personal bias on the matter – 99%, really? To me (IMO), Git is something that's inherently visual and not really suited to a CLI, it has nothing to do with not understanding how Git works under the hood.

Florin_Andrei 7y ago
> Git is something that's inherently visual It absolutely is. The whole "branch" paradigm evokes topology. The visual structure of the thing you're working with ought to be made clear to you, the user. If a GUI has trouble when the workflow deviates from normalcy, it's just not powerful enough. That being said, there will always be users who prefer the command line, and that's totally fine.
- Myrmornis 7y ago
  Although git supports it, one doesn't normally need to use complex branch tree topologies that require visualization.

iaml 7y ago

I use git UI because I want to have a good graphical overview of the repository. Really helpful on larger repos.

JollyGoodFellow 7y ago
Agreed. Been using SourceTree for years. Still use CLI for various tasks but a UI is extremely helpful to: - visualise the project in its current state which may spread across several feature branches all coming in and out of master - code preview (hugely valuable) across one or more files - see your branches - see your stashes - remotes, etc - all of the above across multiple, simultaneous, projects. Large projects can be difficult to manage if you don't have context and oversight, which is harder to obtain from the CLI. Of course we can get this information from the prompt but it is much more difficult to get the information in an easier-to-consume fashion.

Mirioron 7y ago

And if they didn't use a GUI they either wouldn't use git at all or they would struggle with that too.

petepete 7y ago

To be honest, staging individual hunks without a UI is a pain. I use Tig (a TUI) just for this.

mdtusz 7y ago
`git add -p` I use Tig as well, but more often than not the git cli is sufficient.
- petepete 7y ago
  Yeah it's entirely possible but Tig makes it easy and I can do it in a fraction of the time.

saagarjha 7y ago

Git is well suited to graphical interfaces, since it's quite useful to visualize the commit graph and for viewing diffs. The fact that the git command line tool is quite awful makes this even more of a no-brainer.

40four 7y ago

I get what you're saying, but not that they necessarily don't understand git. I guess it's just personal preference. I don't know why, but I've always felt uncomfortable using git in a GUI, but I know a lot of people who love it. For some reason, anytime I try to use a GUI, I don't feel like I'm really doing git, if that makes any sense. Also, I've personally never felt the need to see the branches visually. And if I do get the itch to 'see' them, nothing a quick git log --oneline --graph cant fix!