3 ms·
My personal problem with git was inherent inefficiency of CLI. E.g. I was typing "gs" to see the status almost after every little command. In Gitbox you just se
by oleganza 15y ago
My personal problem with git was inherent inefficiency of CLI. E.g. I was typing "gs" to see the status almost after every little command. In Gitbox you just see the status. Similar thing with submodules: you need to get in and out, verify the status of a submodule and its parent. In Gitbox you just see the whole picture and click a single button to do something useful.
My question is not to git CLI guys (they are doing great job, by the way), but to others like Tower and SourceTree: why in the world they complicate things so much? If one needs a very flexible/configurable environment, git CLI is just fine.
- moe 15y agoTo me the CLI is about fine. It's just the submodules that are poorly executed and break all sorts of expectations. The mini-primer on submodule-WTFs: "must be executed in root-directory", no auto-clone/update of submodules, incomplete info about submodules in status-commands, manual maintenance of .gitmodules, a wide range of irritating/misleading failure modes and error messages... It's really no surprise you hardly ever see a submodule on e.g. github, even on projects where it would make sense. The maintenance headache usually dwarves all potential benefits.
- jscore 15y agoI've tried both and much prefer SourceTree. It's a fantastic piece of software and find all the options intuitive and nicely executed.