Comment by chiefalchemist
7 years ago
Not to sound snarky / adversarial but why is it that (nearly) every article I see on Git has some sort of diagram within it? Yet "execution" is typically limited to CLI? That just feels suboptimal, if not just foolish.
> Yet "execution" is typically limited to CLI? That just feels suboptimal, if not just foolish.
It looks like you mindlessly associate a CLI with a poor -- or suboptimal -- user experience. In fact even your choice of weasel words conveys the idea that you want to mindlessly push an irrational belief in spite of not being able to provide arguments to support it. The truth of the matter is that git -- or any other VCS -- operated through commands that change the current state of the repo. The command line interface excels when the user wants to run commands. Any GUI developed for command line tool will end up doing nothing more than replicate what the CLI already does, and will do so poorly.
Not really. I associate a picture with 1000 words. So if the detailed example/ explanation is an image why isn't the actual process(es) a reflection of that?
Put another way, Git is a process that can be rendered pictorially. Words (i.e., CLI) are a less intuitive abstraction.
Pardon me for stating the obvious :)
The issue is with understanding staging and the working directory. The lightbulb moment for me was reading this article from Atlassian:
https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/resetting-checking-o...
Understanding that git reset --soft moves HEAD but doesn't change the staged snapshot or working directory, whilst --mixed updates the staged snapshot to match the commit but doesn't touch the working directory was very useful. And knowing that reset --hard updates both staging and the working directory to the commit was where I suddenly "got it".
Right. And notice all the diagrams. So why use words when pictures better reflect reality?