4 ms·

I'm curious if you don't like the concepts of how it works or the UI or maybe the workflow. A workflow example would be doing a rebase after a push is almost u

by VLM 11y ago

I'm curious if you don't like the concepts of how it works or the UI or maybe the workflow. A workflow example would be doing a rebase after a push is almost universally seen as naughty so why permit it without some kind of UI like --I-really-know-what-i-am-doing=yes or something? WRT the UI itself, I've read a couple people claiming the emacs magit package is easier to use than the CLI itself, which would isolate the problem to the GUI. I have not personally invested the time into magit and would find comments on that theory by people who have experimented to be interesting. http://magit.vc/ http://magit.vc/

zyxley 11y ago
Git's CLI is just awful in a bunch of ways. There's a bunch of commands that do two or more different things depending on how you use them, and whole piles of cryptic and incomprehensible error messages. Heck, the just the contrast between `git add <file>` and `git reset HEAD <file>` is terrible.
- mnarayan01 11y ago
  I wouldn't describe the CLI as "awful", though I hear your complaint. Not sure where you're going with `add` versus `reset` though. `git rm --cached ${file}` would presumably do what you want with parallel syntax.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    The sane way to do it would be to have something like `git stage` and `git unstage`, as distinct single-purpose commands.
    - mnarayan01 11y ago
      The first example at https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Git-Aliases https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Git-Aliases is literally exactly what you want.
      - zyxley 11y ago
        "It's easy to make the CLI less bad, but the developers have never bothered to do so themselves" is reinforcement of my complaint, not dismissal of it.
        mnarayan01 11y ago
        Not trying to dismiss, just assist ;)
angdis 11y ago
There is NO particular workflow built into git. Teams have to reach an informal agreement on how they're going to use it, otherwise chaos ensues.

by VLM 11y ago

zyxley 11y ago

Git's CLI is just awful in a bunch of ways. There's a bunch of commands that do two or more different things depending on how you use them, and whole piles of cryptic and incomprehensible error messages. Heck, the just the contrast between `git add <file>` and `git reset HEAD <file>` is terrible.

mnarayan01 11y ago
I wouldn't describe the CLI as "awful", though I hear your complaint. Not sure where you're going with `add` versus `reset` though. `git rm --cached ${file}` would presumably do what you want with parallel syntax.
- zyxley 11y ago
  The sane way to do it would be to have something like `git stage` and `git unstage`, as distinct single-purpose commands.
  - mnarayan01 11y ago
    The first example at https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Git-Aliases https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Git-Aliases is literally exactly what you want.
    - zyxley 11y ago
      "It's easy to make the CLI less bad, but the developers have never bothered to do so themselves" is reinforcement of my complaint, not dismissal of it.
      - mnarayan01 11y ago
        Not trying to dismiss, just assist ;)

angdis 11y ago

There is NO particular workflow built into git. Teams have to reach an informal agreement on how they're going to use it, otherwise chaos ensues.