Maybe it's Stockholm syndrome for me, but I never really understood what was so unusable about the vanilla command line git interface.
If you want to do some really advanced stuff, sure it's a little arcane, but the vast majority of stuff that people use in git is easy enough. Branching and committing and merging never seemed that hard to me.
Wnen I do anything more than commit/push/pull at the command line I will quickly get myself so confused that I end up deleting the directory and cloning it again. That doesn't happen to me (much) with magit.
Fair enough. I feel like I do a fair amount of the more advanced features (interactive add and rebase, bisect, worktrees) without any fancy tooling and I don't have a problem much anymore, but admittedly they did confuse me at first.
Maybe it's Stockholm syndrome for me, but I never really understood what was so unusable about the vanilla command line git interface.
If you want to do some really advanced stuff, sure it's a little arcane, but the vast majority of stuff that people use in git is easy enough. Branching and committing and merging never seemed that hard to me.
> Maybe it's Stockholm syndrome for me, but I never really understood what was so unusable about the vanilla command line git interface.
I'm as hardcode CLI user as it gets, I've only lived in the CLI since the mid 80s and still firmly there.
git is the absolute worst CLI ever in the history of humanity.
Wnen I do anything more than commit/push/pull at the command line I will quickly get myself so confused that I end up deleting the directory and cloning it again. That doesn't happen to me (much) with magit.
Fair enough. I feel like I do a fair amount of the more advanced features (interactive add and rebase, bisect, worktrees) without any fancy tooling and I don't have a problem much anymore, but admittedly they did confuse me at first.
1 reply →
imo git does a terrible job of showing its state so when anything more complicated than committing changes you really have to have thing internalized.