5 ms·
In practice, I never use 'commit -a' or 'git add -A'. I prefer to use 'git gui' to interactively stage files or just specific lines. This way I can be sure of w
by daigoba66 12y ago
In practice, I never use 'commit -a' or 'git add -A'. I prefer to use 'git gui' to interactively stage files or just specific lines. This way I can be sure of what is being committed.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoGithub's app [1] does much the same thing, but (IMO) with a much nicer interface. And it works with any git repo, not just one with a github remote. [1] https://mac.github.com/ https://mac.github.com/
- colinbartlett 12y agoI use git add --patch My teammates probably get tired of hearing it, but every time someone erroneously commits some file or line I advocate its use.
- JamesSwift 12y agoI've defaulted to this for some time now, and have no issues with keeping my own smattering of me-specific configuration overrides. Plus, there are a couple other times when being able to work through the patching interface is a handy skill to have.
- Estragon 12y agoMagit in emacs is great for this functionality. It will even add just the selected region of the diff.
- pluma 12y agoI actually prefer `git add -i` if I want more fine-grained control like that.
- pimlottc 12y agogit add -i is a good idea, but the interface is just /atrocious/ - confusing, poorly worded, visually unattractive and hard to read (dark blue text is not very user friendly on a black background).
- pluma 12y agoI guess it's a matter of taste. I would find the context switching between the shell and the GUI more jarring than the usability of `git add -i`. Also, shell colours can be adjusted. But in the end it's good to have multiple options.
- pimlottc 12y agoOh I also prefer CLI, I just tend to use add -p instead.