3 ms·
> levels of state This is the crux for me. Command naming is completely unrelated to and unindicative of state. It feels like surely there's an opportunity fo
by ethbr0 5y ago
> levels of state
This is the crux for me. Command naming is completely unrelated to and unindicative of state.
It feels like surely there's an opportunity for the basic CRUD operations to be collapsed down into a standard "{action} {source} {target}" style.
There will be nuances, specifically around branching, but the basics should be basic. As opposed to a Swiss Army knife, where you have to pull out the scissors and squeeze them three times before you can unfold and use the blade.
- ryanmentor 5y agoAre there any git frontends that do this today?
- unknown_error 5y agoThe one built into IntelliJ IDEs is pretty good. SourceTree is decent too. They are both cover the vast majority of day to day operations. I only ever very rarely have to resort to the command line for ritualistic summoning of the git demons.
- pama 5y agoMagit comes close to this action-source-target model whenever possible.
- weaksauce 5y agoi can't stress just how great magit is. it's worth trying out emacs for just that. something like spacemacs as a wrapper is useful too since it gives you some well configured defaults for file operations. emacs is a kinda trash text editor but an amazing text utility toolkit that enabled magit.
- hbogert 5y agoI'll stress with you. Even if you hate Emacs, magit alone is a valid single use-case to start up emacs.