4 ms·
Staging patches with git add (2024)
- Topgamer7 3mo agoI find grepdiff and this function are pretty useful if you want to pull certain hunks out of a large change set: #!/bin/bash # Put this into your .bashrc, or whatever. function git-add-regex { git diff -U0 | grepdiff -E "$1" --output-matching=hunk | git apply --cached --unidiff-zero } https://gist.github.com/smuuf/76bde33d65b3dbbc2411e8519f3e6c18 https://gist.github.com/smuuf/76bde33d65b3dbbc2411e8519f3e6c...
- deepsun 2mo agoIntelliJ has that since 2018, with visual change-by-change checkboxes that should go into each commit, very handy.
- zikohh 2mo agoI find splitting hunks a pain. I wish I could just split by line, would be a great feature.
- petepete 2mo agoI've used tig for longer than I can remember for my selective staging needs.
- LVB 2mo agoUse 'e' in -p mode and you can edit the hunks as you wish, choose lines, etc.
- embedding-shape 2mo agoThe whole "Stage this hunk [y,n,q,a,d,k,K,j,J,g,/,e,p,P,?]?" line is pretty intimidating, but I urge anyone who still wants to understand git and be able to (themselves) use it effectively, to do "?" when you see it, read through what each action does and forcefully try them out to see what they do, in some low stakes project. Ends up being a super quick way of staging a whole bunch of work and avoiding staging other, but it's pretty weird at first glance.
- feelamee 2mo agoit's not as easy as you said. it can be tricky and complicated to use edit mode. I usually use it, but still often don't understand - will this edit succeed or why it is failed.
- arccy 2mo agouse jj, the default is to select by line
- KwanEsq 2mo agoMercurial's `hg commit -i` with the curses interface is so much better for this it's not even funny. Fortunately I'd assume Jujutsu's UX is similar, based on arccy's comment.
- elevation 2mo ago> splitting hunks a pain Sublime Merge for the win; a fantastic visual interface with context and reversible inputs. Don't leave home without it!
- PaulDavisThe1st 2mo agoto make the list closer to complete, magit in emacs allows this (Ctrl-space on the line, done).
- dahart 2mo agoIn git gui, you can highlight a line and right-click to stage or unstage just that line. I just googled it and discovered it’s relatively easy to add a keyboard shortcut for it, but I’m not sure how useful that is.
- prideout 2mo agoSuper useful, and easy to do in the VS Code merge pane.
- natbennett 2mo agoIn the case of a newly committed file you can add just the file with git add . -N And then review the text itself as part of the git add -p workflow
- westurner 2mo agoTIL about git add -N / --intent-to-add : git add --intent-to-add . git diff git add -p . ## To then reset and keep changes ## these are equivalent: # git reset . # git reset --mixed .
- cerved 2mo agoVin fugitives difftool is even better Also, you can use -p for stash push
- chriswarbo 2mo agoMagit allows selective staging/unstaging, either of hunks, or by selecting lines (AKA Emacs's "region"). I avoid staging from the git commandline, unless I'm just doing whole files. PS: Majutsu provides this too (a magit-like tool for jj)
- rbjorklin 2mo agoNeogit, Magit inspired, does the same for Neovim. Would recommend!
- skydhash 2mo agoI think you can do the same with tig and lazyvim. Sometimes you just need interactivity.
- paustint 2mo agoVSCode also allows staging/unstaging specific hunks by hovering over the hunk near the left/right separator in diff view - super handy when I need it!
- PaulDavisThe1st 2mo agoThe per-line staging in magit is a frequent tool I use. I can be in the middle of bunch of other changes, change 1 line for a different reason that would otherwise be "mid-hunk", and the stage & commit it with its own explanation. It releases me from having to have the "discipline" to stay 100% focused on the broader task at hand and say "hmm, I should fix that while I'm here", without co-mingling purposefully different commits. Truly fantastic. Absurdly, I have no idea how to do this on the command line, though presumably it is possible from there too (just a lot, lot less convenient).
- cwillu 2mo agogit add -p or git add ‹file› -p
- PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
- goosejuice 2mo agoI always use git add -i which is just one level up. The tui is pretty intuitive for day to day tasks, including staging partial chunks or lines of code.
- BeetleB 2mo ago> If you’re not already using git add -p to stage your commits then you’re missing out. After switching to jujutsu, I assure you I don't miss this feature. jj takes the opposite approach. It keeps staging things, and you use split whenever you want to separate things out. (And yes, it stores the staged changes as revisions, so you can always back out to a previous staged state).
- pmarreck 2mo agoI've sadly had to back out of using jj after leaning into LLM coding assistance, as, even with an extremely well-written jj guide in its context (and literally blocking the use of git), it never failed to screw things up more than if I was just using git (I call this an "LLMpedance mismatch" problem) If LLM coding assistance continues to increase, it's going to be a rather large speed bump to cross One of the biggest problems is actually unsolvable if you want to keep colocated Git and git tooling around, because it has to do with how jj fundamentally works: detached HEADs, detached HEADs everywhere You yourself may not use AI, this is for those who do and are interested in switching to jj
- BeetleB 2mo agoI don't let LLMs make commits for me - git or jj. OK, OK - I lie. For personal projects I do - some handle jj decently well. But at work I don't let it make any commits ... and it never tries to. What tools are you using that won't work with detached heads?
- pmarreck 2mo agoI have a lot of things that are built around git already- such as my very commandline, which shouts in bright red if we are on DETACHED HEAD. I know WHY detached heads happen when using jj (from git's perspective); that doesn't mean I have to LIKE it. Why can't interim worktree commits just use the most-recent bookmark, which is 99% of the time what you'd likely want anyway, is easily movable if it's not, and keeps all Git tooling (as well as old Git users like me) from getting confused? I've been letting LLMs make commits for many months now. Perhaps that's the "problem" in my case, and why LLMs' incomplete "mental" model of jj seems to cause issues. You wouldn't see the problem if you are still manually committing. (Also, WHY are you still manually committing? LLMs are pretty great now at git committing, at least!)
- ninkendo 2mo agoMy biggest problem with `add -p` is correcting any patches I added or rejected by accident. Often times I skip through dozens of things I don’t want to add, then realized that last hunk was something I did need. But I can’t re-visit it, I have to start over and try extra hard to not skip past it again. I wish the j and k shortcuts could revisit hunks I’ve already added/rejected, not just ones I haven’t reviewed yet. On a large set of unstaged changes that you mostly don’t want, it really sucks to “lose your place” in the list of hunks.
- ghrl 2mo agoFrom skimming through the article, isn't that what the uppercase variants do?
- topsecret 2mo agoFrom the article, try J and K instead of j and k; that moves to next/previous hunk, not next/previous unreviewed hunk.
- ninkendo 2mo agoTo you and the sibling commenter: D’oh. I should have reviewed the docs better, you’re totally right. Now I feel dumb. Wish I would’ve learned this a long time ago. (Or maybe I did and forgot, perhaps multiple times. I’ve used git basically daily since 2006. I’ve forgotten a lot.)
- wren6991 2mo agoThe worst part of this workflow is when you accidentally run `git commit -am` at the end and destroy all of your careful staging.
- wps 2mo agoWhile I see the utility of partial file commits, I think that it promotes committing untested code. Fossil scm doesn’t have an equivalent feature because of this very issue.
- ninkendo 2mo agoCommitting untested code doesn’t matter at all. Merging untested code absolutely does. What you commit locally doesn’t need to correspond at all to what is even shown to others, let alone merged. Sometimes I think the use cases for “version control I use locally on my machine” and “version control that goes up to the public repo and is reviewed” are so wildly different, it’s a wonder we even use the same tool for both.
- dahart 2mo agoThis isn’t partial commits. It’s partial staging. This does not promote committing untested code. Committing also doesn’t promote a lack of testing, there’s no justification for that assumption.
- mabster 2mo agoIve got a tendency to modify many things as I go and break them into commits later. Generally I do git add -p until things are too interwoven. In that case, I've ended up with the following strategy: git commit -m "WIP" & git revert HEAD & git revert HEAD & git reset HEAD^ Now I've got a copy of the changes as a commit and I'm my work tree. I widdle it down until its one change only. Then I do: git commit -m "Bla" & git rebase -i HEAD~3 -X theirs Them order Bla above WIP. I keep doing this "double revert" trick until the WIP no longer applies. Then done.