3 ms·
tig is great, it's my go-to git client on all my machines. Only since I use tig I understand how to commit hunks. It's super easy to split the changes of a fil
by metaodi 6y ago
tig is great, it's my go-to git client on all my machines.
Only since I use tig I understand how to commit hunks. It's super easy to split the changes of a file into different commits that make sense. With most other clients this is either cumbersome or not possible. So your forced to always commit all changes of a file in one commit.
I guess it just really works great for my workflow and the way I think about my repositories/commits.
- timidger 6y agoOut of curiosity what's wrong with git add -i? That's what I use to stage parts of a file.
- petepete 6y agoTig is just faster, staging and unstaging take a fraction of a second. I've used Tig daily for years (about ten) and basically use it for for quickly browsing the log and changing what's staged - probably less than 5% of its features. Everything else I do via the command line with ZSH's excellent git completion.
- robenkleene 6y ago`git add -i` is linear, you have to address files and chunks in order (there are workarounds for this, but they're clumsy). `git add -i` is a bit like using a typewriter, whereas `tig`, which lets you address files and chunks non-linearly, is like using a word processor by comparison. Edit to your hearts content.