4 ms·

That seems like an obvious choice. Linux users are going to be cli friendly - an area Git happens to excel at already.

• thecrumb 11y ago
  Maybe they are assuming Linux users don't need a gui client? :)
• vinay427 11y ago
  Yes, I've never found a Git client that doesn't result in a second-class experience. For anything common, a CLI is almost always quicker and more consistent. For everything else, I'd much rather quickly search a man page or Stack Overflow for a command than search through likely verbose help documentation for a GUI app.
  • vowelless 11y ago
    Visual diff is very useful to me. I use Meld which works really well for now. But I would love to see a terminal based side-by-side diff view. Does tig have that?
  • rakoo 11y ago
    > For anything common, a CLI is almost always quicker and more consistent. I'm also a command line fan, but when it comes to git there are 2 areas where a GUI is nice: - After slashing through dozens of files, it's nice to have a nice GUI that gives you a list of all changed files, and manually select the lines you want to stage. I use git-cola (https://git-cola.github.io/ https://git-cola.github.io/) or git extensions (https://gitextensions.github.io/ https://gitextensions.github.io/, although there's no screenshot of this exact functionality) depending on the platform I'm on - When I need to explore a repo's history, I like having some interactivity: filtering branches/tags, quickly searching for a commit or its ancestor, search where a commit is included... the git cli is absolutely not the right tool for that. I could get used to tig (https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-tig/ https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-tig/) because it fits the bill for both cases, I just haven taken the time. Sometimes a mouse may be the best tool.
  • yellowapple 11y ago
    I've had good experiences with magit (Emacs' git interface). Doesn't do much good if you ain't an Emacs user, though.