this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
858 points (97.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
19817 readers
89 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
let's turn this into a constructive angle for future devs and current juniors: just learn git cli, I promise you it is much simpler than it seems.
all those memes about git having like a thousand commands are true, but you really will only use like 7 at most per month.
learn push, pull, merge, squash, stash, reset, im probably missing like one or two
I promise you again: it is much simpler than it seems. and you won't have to use these stupid git GUI things, and it will save you a hassle because you will know what commands you are running and what they do
short disclaimer: using git GUI is totally fine but low-key you are missing out on so much
commit. Lol
And mergetool ?
I don't use push/pull btw.
Every time I mentor a dev on using git they insist so much on using some GUI. Even ones who are "proficient" take way longer to do any action than I can with cli. I had one dev who came from SVN land try and convince me that TortoiseGit was the only way to go
I died a little that day, and I never won her over to command line despite her coming to me kinda regularly to un-fuck her repository (still one of the best engineers I ever worked with and I honestly miss her... Just not her source control antics)
If I want to commit a selection of files, but not others, then I'm clicking boxes not typing filenames.
That is the one use case I've seen where a gui is absolutely faster.
In my line of work, I primarily work on embedded systems or process automation so any new files in the repo directory either need to be added for tracking or to the ignore file. I'm not saying it will never happen, but at least in my experience it happens so rarely that I always try to teach command line when possible
git add -pDid you not know?
You can simply select all files you want to commit, in the File Manager, Ctrl+C, then paste in the terminal and it will automatically add all those file names (full paths) separated with spaces at the cursor. At least in KDE: Dolphin ->
zsh+ Konsole it does.And sure, it might look like 2 extra steps, but you will still be clicking around a lot in case of a GUI anyway.
I tend to just type partial filenames and use tab completions, which are also pretty configurable. And the only dissatisfaction I have rn, is that I don't have
zshmodule for completions with pascal case and snake case.The difference in speed is familiarity, not some inherent efficiency gain by typing commands into the cli.
You're 100% right.
But I defy anyone's mouse-foo to come anywhere near the speed of my typing speed and alias list.
Even someone mastering GUI keyboard shortcuts isn't going to be able to match, because my terminal is optimized beyond what is possible in a more graphical app.
What I'm trying to say is that no one can introduce a thoughtless mistake into production code as quickly as I can.
The real metric is dollars per second of destroyed hardware ;)
I once watched an engineer blow up a $200k prototype with a terminal alias.
That's impressive. I'm glad I don't have any story to match that. Hopefully they find it hilarious now. Probably no fun at the time.
So I’m normally a command line fan and have used git there. But I’m also using sublimerge and honestly I find it fantastic for untangling a bunch of changes that need to be in several commits; being able to quickly scroll through all the changed files, expand & collapse the diffs, select files, hunks, and lines directly in the gui for staging, etc. I can’t see that being any faster / easier on the command line.
Heh, I guess this shows my corporate software dev experience. Whenever I've taught git workflows it was always paired with a work ticketing system where any changes you were making were ideally all one single set of changes. If you need a feature or bug fix someone else was doing that was being done on another branch which you could pull into your code early and for tracking purposes we always made sure the other person merged into main first. The only time I've seen per line manipulation with git was when someone made a ton of changes in a file and wanted to revert a handful of lines.
Everything else you mentioned I've had a web git host like gitlab or bitbucket for, but I kinda put that more into peer review workflow than git itself
that's exactly why I'm saying this. I know from experience helping other devs with git issues it's always because they're using a GUI alternative to the CLI and they're clicking on things they don't understand
You get pretty far with just clone, pull, add, commit, push
Checkout
The main draw to the CLI for me is portability. I've been a dev for ten years now and used tons of different editors on different platforms and while each one had a different way to describe the changes, how to commit, or how to "sync" (shudder), the CLI hasn't changed. I didn't have to relearn a vital part of my workflow just because I wanted to try a different editor.
For a first step you can get away with just add, commit, push, and pull. Maybe reset, but tbh using git like svn at first is fine.
Next branch, checkout and merge. At this point show, log, bisect and blame also start to be useful.
I'm not a fan of stash, and would instead recommend reflog and cherry-pick as the first two advanced commands to learn. Then rebase and squash.
Personally, I'm pretty good with the CLI version, but sometimes I just use the Code VC interface. For some tasks (basic commit, pull, push) it's pretty fast. I don't know if it's faster than CLI, but I switch between them depending on what I'm doing at that moment. Code has a built in console, so using either is pretty seemless and easy. If you only use the GUI you won't ever understand it though. I think everyone should start with CLI.
Honestly, this is true for almost everything. GUIs obfiscate. They don't help you learn, but try to take control away so you can't mess up, and as an effect can't do everything you may want.
I use gitkraken for two primary purposes:
Having a visual representation of my project history.
resolving merge conflicts
Of these, the first is really the only thing I really want a GUI for. I'll just have it open on my side-screen if I'm managing some more or less messy branch structure or quickly want an overview of what has been done on which branches, where common ancestors are, etc. All the actual doing of things is done from the CLI, because it's just better for that.
How about Git’s CLI stop being so shit? All of the options are obtuse & usually 3 ways to do the same thing.
Developers should normalize non-Git DVCSs.
Clone too 😁
For me, it is easier to learn to use
gitvia CLI instead of a UI. When I first started using git, I learned a few command/flag combinations that I use every day and I barely learned anything else about git after. Everything I don't do regularly I don't remember, but have written down in a text file of incantations. It is harder to write down what buttons and what menus I have to click.