4 ms·
You can use the GUI as a complement. No need to commit 100% to command line or 100% to GUI. I rely a lot on visualisation to understand things so I tend to lik
by flr03 6y ago
You can use the GUI as a complement. No need to commit 100% to command line or 100% to GUI.
I rely a lot on visualisation to understand things so I tend to like a nice Git GUI. Although some stuff like rebase -i I found it handy to do it in the terminal.
- rumanator 6y ago> You can use the GUI as a complement. No need to commit 100% to command line or 100% to GUI. This. Personally I handle most of Git's CRUD operations through the command line, but to analyse logs and branches and navigate through the depository's history, I find gitk to be an invaluable tool, albeit ugly as sin.
- bluehatbrit 6y agoAnother "+1" for this approach. I usually default to the CLI for almost everything, however some repositories which have a really messy history I prefer to view the history in a GUI for to speed things up a bit. I'll also sometimes use a GUI if I want to commit hunks of large files as moving through the files and seeing the full context is often a bit easier. I still always prefer the CLI and will use that first, but I'd feel silly dying on that hill for every situation.
- nailer 6y agoI don't consider a git UI to be complete unless it has interactive rebase support (ie, the ability to squash commits together so the history looks like 'implement X', rather than 'implement X, 'fix X', 'minor typo on X', 'add additional unit test for X'). Command line is great if you prefer it, but Fork, SourceTree and Tower all have interactive rebase support. Here's me using Fork: https://twitter.com/mikemaccana/status/1237708418124742656?s=20 https://twitter.com/mikemaccana/status/1237708418124742656?s...