Git cheat sheet [pdf](wizardzines.com)
wizardzines.com
Git cheat sheet [pdf]
https://wizardzines.com/git-cheat-sheet.pdf
145 comments
Wow, TIL `git diff --staged` exists and is an alias to `git diff --cached`, which I have used for many years. "staged" certainly feels more intuitive, but will I ever be able to undo this muscle memory?!
Same here. Just make it an alias: ds.
I’m using git dc, but it seems ds may be my new one, haha.
I’m using git dc, but it seems ds may be my new one, haha.
I find aliasing a lot of these saves me a good chunk of time and reduces the barrier to better organize my work.
In case anyone cares to browse or suggest their own: https://gitlab.com/Falimonda/gitrc
In case anyone cares to browse or suggest their own: https://gitlab.com/Falimonda/gitrc
15 years… 15 years to discover git diff --staged !
I don't consider myself a git savvy person, but the help gives output, and I think this command is used a lot
> git diff --staged (shows the diff between the last commit and what you've got staged, great when what you're staging is finicky, lets you double check that you have precisely the files/hunks you intended)
If you set `git config --global commit.verbose true`, then Git will automatically include this diff in the comment section of the commit message editor.
If you set `git config --global commit.verbose true`, then Git will automatically include this diff in the comment section of the commit message editor.
One of faves isn't listed.
Answers the questions of "who did this, when, and why?" / "How long has it been like that?", etc.
git log -LstartLine,endLine:fileName
Answers the questions of "who did this, when, and why?" / "How long has it been like that?", etc.
"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things." - Phil Karlton [0]
Based on the above statement, I find it extremely weird to see such git command named "blame", then I realized I'm not the only one:
What does 'git blame' do? [1].
Blame someone else for your bad code [2].
Git blame should be called git credit [3].
Does Git Blame sound too negative? [4].
______________________________
0. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19836/has-phil-...
1. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31203001/what-does-git-b...
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27963868
3. https://dev.to/damcosset/git-blame-should-be-called-git-cred...
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/r5lzyo/doe...
Based on the above statement, I find it extremely weird to see such git command named "blame", then I realized I'm not the only one:
What does 'git blame' do? [1].
Blame someone else for your bad code [2].
Git blame should be called git credit [3].
Does Git Blame sound too negative? [4].
______________________________
0. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19836/has-phil-...
1. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31203001/what-does-git-b...
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27963868
3. https://dev.to/damcosset/git-blame-should-be-called-git-cred...
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/r5lzyo/doe...
I think `blame` is on-brand for a tool called `git`.
agreed, i renamed [1] it to ‘who’ (well, actually it’s just ‘w’ since i’m a vim-diehard)
[1] https://github.com/looshch/configs/blob/master/.gitconfig#L1...
[1] https://github.com/looshch/configs/blob/master/.gitconfig#L1...
I think a better name would be “git praise”
I'm sure you know this, but for younger readers, in Subversion 'praise' was an alias for 'blame'.
For neutrality, 'annotate’ was another alias.
For neutrality, 'annotate’ was another alias.
One advantage that "git blame" has over possible alternatives such as "git credit", "git author", or "git praise", is that it's one character shorter and maybe faster to type.
For the same number of characters, I have heard of "git glory" as a possible alternative.
For the same number of characters, I have heard of "git glory" as a possible alternative.
and off-by-one errors.
I liked the way I learned git. I started with sourcetree, a third party git gui. Super simple to use and understand. Then I moved to git gui, this step could be skipped. Then I got tired of pulling up my UIs and learned the terminal commands. Highly suggest this for anyone new, but just my (n=1) experience.
All I know of git is clone, pull, commit, and push. That’s all I’ve ever needed. Git can be that simple. Of course it supports more complex uses, which you can learn if you need them.
Life is simple until we play with time, once you start altering the past everything falls apart
This... seems a bit deeper than a comment about just Git.
It's not possible to alter commits with git. They are immutable. You can only make new commits that are based on existing ones in some way. The distinction is important, because the original commit (such as a commit pre-rebase) still exists after it's been "changed".
> The distinction is important, because the original commit (such as a commit pre-rebase) still exists after it's been "changed".
The original commit will only exist for as long as git deigns not to garbage collect it.
The original commit will only exist for as long as git deigns not to garbage collect it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The use case for more is managing the history of it in a specific way to make it easier to understand. Most applications don't need this level of management since most applications don't have lives depending on them
I'd add Stash, unless I'm working alone
Yeah even that has caused me trouble. I usually just copy the problem file to another directory, checkout the file from the repo, pull, and then diff/merge my changes. It may sound like more work, and maybe it is, but I understand what's happening and it's rare enough for me that to do it "the git way" I'd have to look it up every time.
And that's the only reasonable subset of git there is - I agree. Branches and cherry picks aren't worth the insurmountable headaches they come with
>Then I got tired of pulling up my UIs and learned the terminal commands
I'd never revert to terminal commands. Git is basically begging to be interfaced with through a GUI given how much sense it makes to visualize a git repo and its workflows. The moment I started using Magit git started to make sense for me.
I'd never revert to terminal commands. Git is basically begging to be interfaced with through a GUI given how much sense it makes to visualize a git repo and its workflows. The moment I started using Magit git started to make sense for me.
lazygit is a godsend, personally. `git add`ing individual files is a PITA.
Btw I moved from Sourcetree to Fork. It’s very similar but way more performant and smooth UI (unless ST has improved in last few years)
I like GitKraken, except for the fact that it lacks the ability to show first parent only, i.e. `git log --first-parent`. That feature is available in Visual Studio and Visual Studio Code (Git Graph extension), but I don't like these as much as GitKraken, so I end up switching between command line, GitKraken and VS/Code. It's a bit of a mess. Does Fork support `--first-parent`? It's especially hand in merge-heavy workflows with very noodly graphs that you want to simplify.
Not only does Fork support --first-parent, but it even lets you expand/collapse any merge commit just by clicking the node in the graph!
Agreed it's the best way to make sense of a merge-heavy history.
I highly recommend Fork.
I highly recommend Fork.
I love Fork, one of my favorite macOS apps. I wish I could get it on my iPad as well.
Thank you! Had never heard of this. Ill give it a try!
I had kind of the same path but with GitKraken and Sublime Merge but I kept Sublime Merge around as it ease complex interactions too.
I have only praise for Sublime Merge.
I have only praise for Sublime Merge.
Is there a historical reason why git is needlessly complex?
Seeing this cheat sheet really brings it to life.
Seeing this cheat sheet really brings it to life.
Yes. Because git was created by Linus Torvalds specifically to enable and advance Linux kernel development.
The fact it has become so widly adopted is a "happy accident" (or misery). Github I think has been widely credited with making git so common place ("free git hosting") but I don't think git is the "ideal" revision control system for many projects.
Because it was made for Linus for Linus/Linux, this is why the terminology and sometimes workflow is backwards from every other "normal" version control system. A "Pull Request" (PR) is named that because for Linux development Linus/maintainers would PULL changes into Linux kernel tree. In almost every other version control system it's called a Merge Request which logically makes MUCH more sense because you are merging a change (where ever it came from) into a tree.
Git was (still?) the only open-source distributed version control system that could handle enormous code bases with good speed which means it gained a lot of inertia at big companies as well.
I vastly prefer and use Mercurial for personal projects but if you have tried to use Hg on huge code bases (I've tried on Android AOSP) it really chokes. Mercurial got the "user interface" and command-set right and has some nifty features (being able to launch a web server on the fly to get a tree view of your changes) but being written in Python, performance and scalability aren't ideal.
The fact it has become so widly adopted is a "happy accident" (or misery). Github I think has been widely credited with making git so common place ("free git hosting") but I don't think git is the "ideal" revision control system for many projects.
Because it was made for Linus for Linus/Linux, this is why the terminology and sometimes workflow is backwards from every other "normal" version control system. A "Pull Request" (PR) is named that because for Linux development Linus/maintainers would PULL changes into Linux kernel tree. In almost every other version control system it's called a Merge Request which logically makes MUCH more sense because you are merging a change (where ever it came from) into a tree.
Git was (still?) the only open-source distributed version control system that could handle enormous code bases with good speed which means it gained a lot of inertia at big companies as well.
I vastly prefer and use Mercurial for personal projects but if you have tried to use Hg on huge code bases (I've tried on Android AOSP) it really chokes. Mercurial got the "user interface" and command-set right and has some nifty features (being able to launch a web server on the fly to get a tree view of your changes) but being written in Python, performance and scalability aren't ideal.
> Mercurial got the "user interface" and command-set right and has some nifty features (being able to launch a web server on the fly to get a tree view of your changes) but being written in Python, performance and scalability aren't ideal.
I used to think Mercurial had a better UI but I changed my mind after taking the time to understand Git. Mercurial does have nifty features but Git's way of working isn't hard or especially counterintuitive. You must learn the terminology to properly understand it, but after that it's smooth sailing. Git actually has fewer moving parts than Mercurial, as there are less extraneous features. Instead of 3 or more categories of "branch-like" graph structures like Mercurial, you get branches as refs in Git. Every named leaf in the commit graph is a branch or a tag, and those have simple properties. There are surely git plugins to add more metadata but you don't really need that.
Git too has a web interface by default: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitweb Of course there are many Github-like solutions specifically catered to hosting repos and entire project workflows with Git too.
I used to think Mercurial had a better UI but I changed my mind after taking the time to understand Git. Mercurial does have nifty features but Git's way of working isn't hard or especially counterintuitive. You must learn the terminology to properly understand it, but after that it's smooth sailing. Git actually has fewer moving parts than Mercurial, as there are less extraneous features. Instead of 3 or more categories of "branch-like" graph structures like Mercurial, you get branches as refs in Git. Every named leaf in the commit graph is a branch or a tag, and those have simple properties. There are surely git plugins to add more metadata but you don't really need that.
Git too has a web interface by default: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitweb Of course there are many Github-like solutions specifically catered to hosting repos and entire project workflows with Git too.
You must learn the terminology to properly understand it, but after that it's smooth sailing
This promise never held to me. I know the terminology and “how”, but it never got clear in my mind how to express day to day things which aren’t clone/add/commit/push. It’s just bad unmemorable ui that is both cumbersome to use and reason about.
I do have trouble remembering things but not like this with any other tool. For example, with ffmpeg and magick I could make them work without a manual. With git I can only damage things irrepairably.
This promise never held to me. I know the terminology and “how”, but it never got clear in my mind how to express day to day things which aren’t clone/add/commit/push. It’s just bad unmemorable ui that is both cumbersome to use and reason about.
I do have trouble remembering things but not like this with any other tool. For example, with ffmpeg and magick I could make them work without a manual. With git I can only damage things irrepairably.
Lol if you can remember how to use ImageMagick and Ffmpeg but not Git, I don't get it. Those programs do have very different argument passing styles than Git, but Git uses the same style as most every other unix/linux program. If you use it and know what you're doing, you should not be able to lose any work.
My advice to get over the hump you're on is to commit more often, check the status more often (`git diff [--staged]` and `git status`), and make sure you're branching or tagging enough to not lose commits. Then work on how to edit commits with `git rebase -i`. You can use rebase and cherry-pick to eliminate any unwanted commits or branches easily (notwithstanding conflicts, which are another critical thing to learn). If you feel like you messed up, you can almost always `git reset --hard` to the last commit you were on. If you forgot which commit you were on, there's the reflog. Generally, to be good at Git you have to take a few hours to learn it. It differs from the other programs you mentioned because there are different problems you can encounter at various points while using Git, whereas those other ones just succeed or fail and don't usually fail in unrecoverable ways (you just run them again until you're satisfied with the output). You can iterate on modifications to your commit history with Git but that is trickier and riskier.
There are many excellent Git tutorials online that explain everything an ordinary user needs, including rebases and the reflog. I think Github has one. Maybe that's what you need to figure it out, in addition to practice of course.
My advice to get over the hump you're on is to commit more often, check the status more often (`git diff [--staged]` and `git status`), and make sure you're branching or tagging enough to not lose commits. Then work on how to edit commits with `git rebase -i`. You can use rebase and cherry-pick to eliminate any unwanted commits or branches easily (notwithstanding conflicts, which are another critical thing to learn). If you feel like you messed up, you can almost always `git reset --hard` to the last commit you were on. If you forgot which commit you were on, there's the reflog. Generally, to be good at Git you have to take a few hours to learn it. It differs from the other programs you mentioned because there are different problems you can encounter at various points while using Git, whereas those other ones just succeed or fail and don't usually fail in unrecoverable ways (you just run them again until you're satisfied with the output). You can iterate on modifications to your commit history with Git but that is trickier and riskier.
There are many excellent Git tutorials online that explain everything an ordinary user needs, including rebases and the reflog. I think Github has one. Maybe that's what you need to figure it out, in addition to practice of course.
What ffmpeg and magick have in common that git doesn’t is (relatively) intuitive and straightforward arguments. They have lots of arguments, but they are otherwise simple and consistent. If I remember an idea, it always works the same and looks the same.
In git there’s always “foo”, “bar --frob” or “baz :QUUX -j” in a set of logically related operations, and neither of keywords make sense. Also every generation of git had its own ui ways, so it’s very hard to learn if it’s e.g. some reset/checkout incantation or just restore that you wanted, because when you refer to google, it never knows it’s not 2015 anymore. Some humans can’t learn inconsistent badly named things, I’m one of them. I can remember, but to actually understand I’d have to understand Linuses mind’s inner machinery, which is alien to me.
In git there’s always “foo”, “bar --frob” or “baz :QUUX -j” in a set of logically related operations, and neither of keywords make sense. Also every generation of git had its own ui ways, so it’s very hard to learn if it’s e.g. some reset/checkout incantation or just restore that you wanted, because when you refer to google, it never knows it’s not 2015 anymore. Some humans can’t learn inconsistent badly named things, I’m one of them. I can remember, but to actually understand I’d have to understand Linuses mind’s inner machinery, which is alien to me.
Idk which common Git commands you think are so incomprehensible or unstable between versions. Structure-wise, there's a combination of positional and non-positional arguments, but that's not uncommon on Linux. I haven't seen a major change in the way the Git UI works for the basics in the past decade, that I can recall. Of course Googling an answer to a problem can lead you off the beaten path, but I think that if you get an idea of what looks appropriate you won't be taken in by hairbrained approaches.
I think most of what you need is actually on this cheat sheet, so maybe all you needed was a reference.
I think most of what you need is actually on this cheat sheet, so maybe all you needed was a reference.
> you won't be taken in by hairbrained approaches.
Hare-brained. (Hares are not supposed to be very smart animals.)
Hare-brained. (Hares are not supposed to be very smart animals.)
Looking at subj cheatsheet, I immediately see `git add .` described as adding ALL untracked files and unstaged changes. But deleted files will not be included, unless you pass -A / --all. But wait, that's just my memories, since git now does include removed files, according to my tests today and https://git-scm.com/docs/git-add#Documentation/git-add.txt--.... It's hard to tell if that changed in the past decade or not, cause the manual never mentions neither a version not that -A is default now in a section corresponding to -A. I still have -A in my bash aliases and it was 2017 when I finally got frustrated enough to create them.
And this complexity was literally from the first trivial thing I checked, I wasn't looking for it for hours to gaslight anyone here. Git is nice and fast as a core program, but its ui, documentation, compat and informational ecosystem are just poor.
And this complexity was literally from the first trivial thing I checked, I wasn't looking for it for hours to gaslight anyone here. Git is nice and fast as a core program, but its ui, documentation, compat and informational ecosystem are just poor.
What do you mean, "deleted files" -- removed from the git staging area with "git rm", or actually deleted on the file-system level? (I don't think it ever added the latter, did it?)
Yeah, I'd heard good things about the Mercurial UI but bounced off when "how to branch" turned up https://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-m... with not one but three radically different answers. Seemed somehow unfinished to me.
I wouldn't say that these features are unfinished. They're just "extra" features that don't really add anything to the experience. People who like Mercurial rationalize and say that this gives you more options, of course. I think you can't really delete named branches in Mercurial, but don't hold me to that. The one that corresponds to Git branches is bookmarks, and of course bookmarks are the last thing you ever learn about when you are picking up Mercurial.
It is kinda nice to not be able to accidentally lose a branch even if you're a low-skill Mercurial user, and that is the main selling point for most people. On the other hand, low-skill Git users lose stuff often. It's actually really hard to lose committed stuff in Git because of the reflog, but the low-skill users never heard of that and you can really have a hard time explaining it to them. The other big complaint is about `git reset` and its various incarnations. People really don't take the time to understand what it does with its various options, and when they delete their changes accidentally they blame the tool.
It is kinda nice to not be able to accidentally lose a branch even if you're a low-skill Mercurial user, and that is the main selling point for most people. On the other hand, low-skill Git users lose stuff often. It's actually really hard to lose committed stuff in Git because of the reflog, but the low-skill users never heard of that and you can really have a hard time explaining it to them. The other big complaint is about `git reset` and its various incarnations. People really don't take the time to understand what it does with its various options, and when they delete their changes accidentally they blame the tool.
It might also help understanding, when talking about the history of git, to keep in mind that it came to be out of the urgent need for a tool to replace (then still proprietary) BitKeeper. I wouldn't say that bk is as hard to grok as git, but it's certainly complex as well. I wonder if some of git's idiosyncrasies are a result of intentionally avoiding a look&feel equivalent to bk lest that would alienate Mr. McVoy.
I can't say I was front and center to everything happening, but I always thought it was strange that Linux used Bitkeeper which is very not open-source. So many battles have been fought around Linux and GPL that this seemed a bit hypocrtical.
Of course things were run afoul when Tridge started reverse engineering the bk protocol/datastructure but frankly the need to switch away from bk was a bit self-inflicted from what I could tell.
Of course things were run afoul when Tridge started reverse engineering the bk protocol/datastructure but frankly the need to switch away from bk was a bit self-inflicted from what I could tell.
> So many battles have been fought around Linux and GPL that this seemed a bit hypocrtical.
Throwing all in one bucket necessarily leads to confusion. Sure, there were and are FOSS zealots and Linux zealots and there is an overlap. Linus Torvalds himself however is a very practically minded guy who clearly expressed that he would use proprietary software if it would suit his needs better. He got a lot of heat for that stance, as some Linux kernel developers happen to be more ideologically pure. No need to warm that battle up.
(oh, BTW, BitKeeper is FOSS since about 2016)
Throwing all in one bucket necessarily leads to confusion. Sure, there were and are FOSS zealots and Linux zealots and there is an overlap. Linus Torvalds himself however is a very practically minded guy who clearly expressed that he would use proprietary software if it would suit his needs better. He got a lot of heat for that stance, as some Linux kernel developers happen to be more ideologically pure. No need to warm that battle up.
(oh, BTW, BitKeeper is FOSS since about 2016)
There's a C version of hg, and more recently a rust version. I can't say how much faster they are though
I don't think those other implementations were ever finished.
Some of the complexity comes from the fact that in earlier versions it was reasonably expensive to add new subcommands. As a result more functionality got added to existing subcommands like git checkout. This made the UX more confusing.
In newer versions of git the cost of adding new subcommands is reduced and they've started adding more specific commands like git switch.
In newer versions of git the cost of adding new subcommands is reduced and they've started adding more specific commands like git switch.
The addition of `switch` and `restore` has probably reduced my daily cursing-at-git rate by half.
Why was that?
I think most of the time you’d be ok just knowing a couple of git commands (log, add, commit, pull, push, ..?). And of course there’s also GUI tools.
I don’t think git is that complex for most workflows to be honest. But there is a lot of power that is available if the need arises.
I don’t think git is that complex for most workflows to be honest. But there is a lot of power that is available if the need arises.
It's not needlessly complex. The workflow it was created to support is inordinately complex, and the target market for that is highly technical, so its complexity was not the issue. Kernel developers needed to communicate to other kernel developers in a decentralized manner, and needed to work on top of each other. How do you work on a project where there are 15,000 people writing code? Git was created for this purpose.
It's as complex as it needs to be to support the workflows it was designed to be. A dumber tool would be easy to create, but then it would not be able to support more complex workflows like linux kernel development. So it's not needlessly complex, though it is more complex than it needs to be for simple use cases.
For those needing a less complicated frontend, there's a large number of them to make it easier to interact with git. For people that aren't full-time software developers, I don't recommend using git directly. However for those that are, it's worth taking the time to understand the underlying concepts so git becomes something you understand because once you do, it's quite elegant for what it does. I'm not going to gatekeep being a software developer on whether or not you know git, but if figuring out for yourself how such a fundamental system works doesn't give you a release of dopamine, this might not be your kind of thing. Which is totally fine. There are tons of things that are and aren't my thing.
I recommend https://learngitbranching.js.org for learning how to navigate around git.
but of course, https://xkcd.com/1597/ applies as well.
It's as complex as it needs to be to support the workflows it was designed to be. A dumber tool would be easy to create, but then it would not be able to support more complex workflows like linux kernel development. So it's not needlessly complex, though it is more complex than it needs to be for simple use cases.
For those needing a less complicated frontend, there's a large number of them to make it easier to interact with git. For people that aren't full-time software developers, I don't recommend using git directly. However for those that are, it's worth taking the time to understand the underlying concepts so git becomes something you understand because once you do, it's quite elegant for what it does. I'm not going to gatekeep being a software developer on whether or not you know git, but if figuring out for yourself how such a fundamental system works doesn't give you a release of dopamine, this might not be your kind of thing. Which is totally fine. There are tons of things that are and aren't my thing.
I recommend https://learngitbranching.js.org for learning how to navigate around git.
but of course, https://xkcd.com/1597/ applies as well.
After learning Jujutsu, I realized this is really wrong. The underlying data structures and operations are great, and they serve their purposes really well (such as supporting 10k+ people collaborating like you mentioned). They are what makes git great. The git command line interface is a needlessly complex abstraction on top of them that tries to encourage certain behaviors, but does a really bad job at it.
100% agree.
The fact there are 5 different ways to do the same thing is BAD, not good. Have one well defined, documented clear way to solve a problem.
The fact there are 5 different ways to do the same thing is BAD, not good. Have one well defined, documented clear way to solve a problem.
There are 3 different ways I could get to the store, I could walk or drive or bicycle. There are also 3 different paths I can take. I could go down road A, sidestreet B, or alleyway C. I know you'd rather one big button to press that just says "do it" on it, but in order to perform complex actions on complex objects, there are going to be multiple ways to accomplish the same thing.
But what if one of the ways to the store is dangerous once in a while but usually safe and always just as fast as the other 2 ways to the store.. Laziness has nothing to with the posters question. There is nothing wrong with Git , I just don't agree with the comparison.
But if the dangerous route takes only 15 minutes, and the safe ones take an hour, why shouldn't I, being fully aware of the risks, have the option to take it when I want to?
I don't know where I called anyone lazy.
I don't know where I called anyone lazy.
I'll have to dig into https://github.com/martinvonz/jj hadn't heard of it before. Either way, there's an underlying data structure with operations to be performed on, the interface to it is shit, and learning the underlying data structure makes it all make sense.
So where is the totally refactored/revamped CLI that applies Occam's Razor ?
I see that (in principle at least) it can be a simple UI for an existing git repo but then it gets kind of complicated again discussing how that works.
I can tell you how to do a bunch of things with Jujutsu without looking it up: how to rebase a tree of branches given a common ancestor, how to do a 3+ way merge, how to split the changes in a commit into multiple commits, how to duplicate a branch, how to find all of the commits that haven't made it into the default branch...
I can't tell you how to do a single one of these things in git without looking it up. My years of experience with git is around a decade I think. My experience with Jujutsu adds up to about 3 months.
Sure, there are things that I would still have to look up how to do with Jujutsu; I don't know all of its features. I think the operations I know how to do with Jujutsu off the top of my head are strictly a superset of the operations I know how to do with git though.
I can't tell you how to do a single one of these things in git without looking it up. My years of experience with git is around a decade I think. My experience with Jujutsu adds up to about 3 months.
Sure, there are things that I would still have to look up how to do with Jujutsu; I don't know all of its features. I think the operations I know how to do with Jujutsu off the top of my head are strictly a superset of the operations I know how to do with git though.
There's a common(?) use case for git/jujutsu that I can't find a simple answer to:
I clone a repo. I make some changes to my copy. But then I want to keep my copy up to date with the original repo by stirring in all the updates that have been made lately to the original repo.
Seems like it oughta be simple, but git makes it mysterious. Will jujutsu make this possible using only simple, sensible CLI commands ? And conflicts will be nicely stored away for near-term cleanup ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I clone a repo. I make some changes to my copy. But then I want to keep my copy up to date with the original repo by stirring in all the updates that have been made lately to the original repo.
Seems like it oughta be simple, but git makes it mysterious. Will jujutsu make this possible using only simple, sensible CLI commands ? And conflicts will be nicely stored away for near-term cleanup ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
jj fetch # get the most recent changes from the remote
jj rebase -b @ -d branch@remote # rebase the branch of the current working commit onto the newly fetched commits.
Note that the way to do this with git is almost identical, but maybe not as obvious. In git I think this can be done with a single command though: git pull --rebase.
If this is not the state you want your repo to be in and I misunderstood, I'm still pretty confident I could get a repo in the state you want using Jujutsu quite easily :)
Edit: though also the git way to do this would kind of force you to deal with cleaning up conflicts immediately, whereas with Jujutsu you can put off conflicts indefinitely.
jj rebase -b @ -d branch@remote # rebase the branch of the current working commit onto the newly fetched commits.
Note that the way to do this with git is almost identical, but maybe not as obvious. In git I think this can be done with a single command though: git pull --rebase.
If this is not the state you want your repo to be in and I misunderstood, I'm still pretty confident I could get a repo in the state you want using Jujutsu quite easily :)
Edit: though also the git way to do this would kind of force you to deal with cleaning up conflicts immediately, whereas with Jujutsu you can put off conflicts indefinitely.
"Needlessly" can be in the eye of the beholder, but given that Linus basically put it together to solve the problem he was trying to solve without consulting a UX team or building a product for the ages, I would be willing to place my probability bar pretty high on the design tilting towards "One person's best idea right now" over "Best design theoretically possible."
That having been said, the team is really good at engines so the software is quite good at doing what it's supposed to do.
That having been said, the team is really good at engines so the software is quite good at doing what it's supposed to do.
WCan you give at least a few examples of complex operations that only arise at the scale of thousands of people?
Because good UI design requires a different skill and takes extra effort to achieve, so it's most often just ignored
Git is not complex. Its UI is!
Git is very simple. It is built on just four concepts: blobs, trees, commits, refs.
Git is very simple. It is built on just four concepts: blobs, trees, commits, refs.
Because Linus had more clout in the SE industry than anyone else and said “SVN bad” and nobody wanted to do enough research to disprove him so here we are.
Merging in Subversion is a complete disaster. The Subversion people kind of acknowledge this and they have a plan and their plan sucks, too. It is incredible how stupid these people are.
So for example, let's go back to one of the things where I think the designers of Subversion were complete morons. Strong opinions. That's me, right? There's a few of them in the room today, I suspect. You're stupid. (Crowd laughs)
Nobody is interest in branching. Branches are completely useless unless you merge them.
https://sandeep.ramgolam.com/blog/linus-torvalds-talks-about...
Merging in Subversion is a complete disaster. The Subversion people kind of acknowledge this and they have a plan and their plan sucks, too. It is incredible how stupid these people are.
So for example, let's go back to one of the things where I think the designers of Subversion were complete morons. Strong opinions. That's me, right? There's a few of them in the room today, I suspect. You're stupid. (Crowd laughs)
Nobody is interest in branching. Branches are completely useless unless you merge them.
https://sandeep.ramgolam.com/blog/linus-torvalds-talks-about...
I didn't know about `git add -p`. Really useful!
-p, --patch
Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.I always custom-select hunks of my current work to assemble into coherent commits, where possible. I find it really helps me to rearrange the work I've done in my head in such a way that if I needed to walk someone through it, I could do so by walking the commit line.
Love this. I would add:
git commit —-fixup $COMMIT_ID
git rebase -i upstream/master —autosquash
Ahh, thank you:
git commit —-fixup $COMMIT_ID
I only recently learnt this one, it's great for working with stacked patches in gerrit.
>squash the last 5 commits into one: `git rebase -i HEAD^^^^^^`
Shouldn't this be: `git rebase -i HEAD~5` ?
Assuming you only want to rebase linear history.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2221658/whats-the-differ...
Shouldn't this be: `git rebase -i HEAD~5` ?
Assuming you only want to rebase linear history.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2221658/whats-the-differ...
The biggest eye opener for me is understanding that all those commits are "still in there". Tags and branches merely point to a commit and the commit that branch used to apply to isn't gone.
Many (probably fair to say "nearly all"?) commands will be non destructive in that you can easily refer to older incarnations of your branch.
I'd seen "git reflog" but mostly used it to remind me of "that branch I worked on a while ago".
I gained a semi-healthy fear of operations that could land me in the middle of a conflict resolution that I wasn't interested in handling right now (often because the conflict occurred because I was referring to the wrong commit/branch).
I haven't completely cured that fear but at least I feel pretty comfortable recovering any old work among rebases, etc.
Many (probably fair to say "nearly all"?) commands will be non destructive in that you can easily refer to older incarnations of your branch.
I'd seen "git reflog" but mostly used it to remind me of "that branch I worked on a while ago".
I gained a semi-healthy fear of operations that could land me in the middle of a conflict resolution that I wasn't interested in handling right now (often because the conflict occurred because I was referring to the wrong commit/branch).
I haven't completely cured that fear but at least I feel pretty comfortable recovering any old work among rebases, etc.
Jujutsu has 100% cured me of those exact fears. Here are some ways I deal with them:
- I don't know if there will be conflicts when after some operation. I just do the operation and see what happens. If there are conflicts, I either deal with them, undo the operation that caused the conflict, or make a me commit somewhere else, leaving the conflict to be dealt with later.
- I know there is going to be a conflict. In this case I may duplicate the related branches and either try to reconcile them ahead of time, or try to do the conflicting operating and walk through resolving it. If the conflict resolution gets gnarly, I can either undo portions of the resolution and keep trying, put it off and do something else for some time, or abandon the whole tree.
- I don't know if there will be conflicts when after some operation. I just do the operation and see what happens. If there are conflicts, I either deal with them, undo the operation that caused the conflict, or make a me commit somewhere else, leaving the conflict to be dealt with later.
- I know there is going to be a conflict. In this case I may duplicate the related branches and either try to reconcile them ahead of time, or try to do the conflicting operating and walk through resolving it. If the conflict resolution gets gnarly, I can either undo portions of the resolution and keep trying, put it off and do something else for some time, or abandon the whole tree.
I'll say it aloud: People need to drop git and look at JJ
https://martinvonz.github.io/jj/v0.17.1/
I think even Linus thinks git has a shitty UI. JJ has an amazing workflow.
https://martinvonz.github.io/jj/v0.17.1/
I think even Linus thinks git has a shitty UI. JJ has an amazing workflow.
Going to have to disagree on the lack of an index: I can see workflows where that's simpler, but I'm so used to that now with git (for better or worse) I'm imagining that'd be a pretty big workflow change for me...
Other than playing around with it, I haven't really used it in anger though, so...
Other than playing around with it, I haven't really used it in anger though, so...
I always find it interesting how knowledge makes it hard to comprehend the difficulties other people have. I used to barely understand git, but after a couple of years working at a company that relies on a rebase workflow, I'd like to think I largely understand how it works. Its nice to recognise pretty much every operation on this cheatsheet.
Is it common that developers still have issues with git after using it professionally for a couple of years? Admittedly, I still have trouble remembering the commands to do what I want (hello, rebase --onto A B C), though :P.
Is it common that developers still have issues with git after using it professionally for a couple of years? Admittedly, I still have trouble remembering the commands to do what I want (hello, rebase --onto A B C), though :P.
> knowledge makes it hard to comprehend the difficulties other people have
The phenomena you describe is known as the Curse of Knowledge [1]
Wikipedia gives an example: A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject for the first time. [2]
[1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/163747/132074
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
The phenomena you describe is known as the Curse of Knowledge [1]
Wikipedia gives an example: A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject for the first time. [2]
[1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/163747/132074
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
The skillset to navigate this is one of the underappreciated challenges of teaching.
Exactly zero of my mathematics professors, and a large portion of my CS professors managed to adequately account for this. The professors of mine who did manage it remain firmly in my memories as great people and great teachers, while the one's who didn't inhabit an area between complete memory erasure, and disdain for how hard they made my life. This is at the very core of what it means to be a teacher, not just knowing the material, but knowing how to teach the material. I consider many of them to be failures at their main job for failing to navigate the curse.
> In the middle of delivering a lecture, Hardy arrived at a point in his argument where he said: "It is now obvious that..." Here he stopped, fell silent, and stood motionless with furrowed brow for a few seconds. Then he walked out of the lecture hall.
> Twenty minutes later he returned, smiling, and began: "Yes, it is obvious that..."
> Twenty minutes later he returned, smiling, and began: "Yes, it is obvious that..."
> I consider many of them to be failures at their main job for failing to navigate the curse.
A professor's main job is not to teach. It's publishing and getting funds into the university.
A professor's main job is not to teach. It's publishing and getting funds into the university.
> I always find it interesting how knowledge makes it hard to comprehend the difficulties other people have.
Once the mind had bootstrapped itself to a concept, it is very hard to empathize with your past self unless you took cares to document the difficulties while still in the confused state, articulating as much detail and as many fallacies encountered as possible.
I always liken it to Wittgenstein's analogy -- don't throw away the ladder after having climbed up upon it!
Once the mind had bootstrapped itself to a concept, it is very hard to empathize with your past self unless you took cares to document the difficulties while still in the confused state, articulating as much detail and as many fallacies encountered as possible.
I always liken it to Wittgenstein's analogy -- don't throw away the ladder after having climbed up upon it!
I can do git pull, branch, add, commit, push, merge, diff, status, stash pretty much without thinking but much beyond that I have to look it up.
> Is it common that developers still have issues with git after using it professionally for a couple of years?
As someone who has worked on developer tooling, including building a custom git client at a former job - yes.
Most people learn a few specific workflows not conceptually how things work under the hood.
Visual editors like GitKraken, Submlime Merge, Sourcetree, etc, have made this much better but there's still a big gap.
As someone who has worked on developer tooling, including building a custom git client at a former job - yes.
Most people learn a few specific workflows not conceptually how things work under the hood.
Visual editors like GitKraken, Submlime Merge, Sourcetree, etc, have made this much better but there's still a big gap.
A version control tool shouldn't take YEARS of usage to be productive, to me that's a red flag. Some engineering tools are just complex because what we're doing might need that flexability so the tools provide a myraid of options or workflows.
But writing software, tracking your changes, being able to back out your changes and getting your changes integrated into a code base should be as low activation energy as possible to be productive.
But again, git wasn't created for "you and me", it was created by one guy for his project, the fact "mere mortals" are using it is kind of our fault.
But writing software, tracking your changes, being able to back out your changes and getting your changes integrated into a code base should be as low activation energy as possible to be productive.
But again, git wasn't created for "you and me", it was created by one guy for his project, the fact "mere mortals" are using it is kind of our fault.
I understand the commonly used core concepts of git pretty well, and using that knowledge, I can do exactly what I want using Git GUIs (IntelliJ these days). With CLI I can do pulls and commits at most.
IntelliJ has become pretty powerful with Git these days.
Squashing, dropping commits, rebasing. Even interactive rebase can be done in a few clicks.
I sometimes pop up IDEA to do some non-trivial cleanup in a repo. Even if relatively fluent with the command line, it saves me a lot of time.
Squashing, dropping commits, rebasing. Even interactive rebase can be done in a few clicks.
I sometimes pop up IDEA to do some non-trivial cleanup in a repo. Even if relatively fluent with the command line, it saves me a lot of time.
What I like most, and isn't available in most UIs, is the ease of selecting individual lines you want to commit. Allows you to make very clean isolated commits most of the times.
Magit does that and this is super useful indeed!
> Admittedly, I still have trouble remembering the commands to do what I want (hello, rebase --onto A B C), though :P.
I work at a company where every developer uses Sourcetree, a GUI for Git. I don't really have a need to remember Git commands (and what arguments they take) anymore after using a GUI. For me, it is sufficient to know what Git commands do without knowing the semantics.
I work at a company where every developer uses Sourcetree, a GUI for Git. I don't really have a need to remember Git commands (and what arguments they take) anymore after using a GUI. For me, it is sufficient to know what Git commands do without knowing the semantics.
I always use SmartGit, another GUI. (I've lauded it to all and sundry, but have yet to inspire a new devotee...)
I can confirm the part about rebase workflow, it really forces you to understand the git model. I sincerely recommend every dev to try it at least once. It also got me into custom power tools for git, like incremental rebase, dual blame, etc.
Too late to edit but I just realized we probably mean very different things by "rebase workflow". I meant making extensive use of Git history editing even on public branches, (with tags serving as backup). I guess the common meaning of "rebase workflow" is just using rebase instead of merge.
Largely we rebase so that all PRs are defacto Fast Forward merges. Rebasing on publicly visible branches (PRs and the like) is common, although rebasing major branches (Master or a release) is not. We're small enough that we can get away with that if we must, though (usually if someone breaks something badly).
Basically, developers rebase all the time on their own branches, and rebase over their target branch (fixing conflicts) so that the PR is fast forward.
Agree on the git model thing, I feel like I have a reasonable idea of how git functions under the hood now, so I can figure out what most operations should do, even if I haven't used them before.
Basically, developers rebase all the time on their own branches, and rebase over their target branch (fixing conflicts) so that the PR is fast forward.
Agree on the git model thing, I feel like I have a reasonable idea of how git functions under the hood now, so I can figure out what most operations should do, even if I haven't used them before.
One thing missing that I use all the time, "git cherry". Without arguments it will show you what commits in your local branch are not in your remote tracking branch. Use "git cherry <ref>" to list the commits in the current branch that are not in the given ref.
Most simple use is to know what you are about to push. Second use case is getting a commit list for release notes when using deployment/promotion branches.
Super useful, I thought everyone used it but maybe some don't know!
Most simple use is to know what you are about to push. Second use case is getting a commit list for release notes when using deployment/promotion branches.
Super useful, I thought everyone used it but maybe some don't know!
Cool cheat sheet, especially because it covers common use cases. But practically everything covered here I was able to learn independently with Magit. It's also much easier to press one or two keys in the magit-status buffer than to open a terminal and manually type git commands, so I pretty much never use the git CLI directly, not even for a clone.
I am just the opposite. I started using Git not long after it gained traction outside of the kernel project. Of course, it was primarily geared toward working in the terminal then. Some years later I had switched to Emacs and gave Magit a whirl. Even after going through quite a bit of its copious documentation, I just never felt comfortable with it. I guess I don't like being that far removed from the actual goings on with the repository.
I've since switched to Vim and happily use git at the terminal prompt. I doubt that will ever change as the interactive interface of various Git commands has improved.
I've since switched to Vim and happily use git at the terminal prompt. I doubt that will ever change as the interactive interface of various Git commands has improved.
But it requires you to learn emacs. I thought I could just apt-get emacs and then from there do something to the effect of "install magit" and have a easy to use interface to git.
I half a day later I gave up. Never got to install magit.
I half a day later I gave up. Never got to install magit.
I had this exact experience trying to install Common Lisp. Installed emacs and wtfed out of there 30 min later having learned nothing and feeling slightly traumatized.
This is great, especially the little diagrams which help illustrate rebasing vs merging, one of the tricker parts of the git learning curve.
Having said that I think it could more clearly state the author's typical preferred practice for updating a branch and integrating it with main when you're done. There's a few techniques listed for diverged branches, but then fast-forward merge is in its own box and it's not super clear how you might use working-branch rebasing with it to eliminate divergences in the first place (even though it's hinted at under "pull changes").
I wonder if it would be clearer to say something like "combining branches: rebase your branch and do a (FF) merge, optionally with squashing," or however they like to do it.
Having said that I think it could more clearly state the author's typical preferred practice for updating a branch and integrating it with main when you're done. There's a few techniques listed for diverged branches, but then fast-forward merge is in its own box and it's not super clear how you might use working-branch rebasing with it to eliminate divergences in the first place (even though it's hinted at under "pull changes").
I wonder if it would be clearer to say something like "combining branches: rebase your branch and do a (FF) merge, optionally with squashing," or however they like to do it.
Maybe my favorite option is missing here.
`git commit -v`
This will put the diff of the commit into your commit message as comments. Makes it easy to remember what you're doing/committing without having to jump back to the terminal/someplace else to look at the diff.
`git commit -v`
This will put the diff of the commit into your commit message as comments. Makes it easy to remember what you're doing/committing without having to jump back to the terminal/someplace else to look at the diff.
If you aren't already, you can also try Magit. It really helps one master and interact with Git.
Every cheat sheet like this highlights the surprisingly high learning curve of the git cli. It's an interface that really ships it's underlying data model rather than optimizing for common workflows. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I often feel like the target audience of git is the power user, leaving me uncertain anytime I need to perform an intermediate level action.
Lately I've been enjoying Graphite as a tool to interface with git. Commands are based around atomic actions I want to perform, despite often triggering multiple git commands under the hood. This has reduced my overall mental overhead, and removed many footguns.
Lately I've been enjoying Graphite as a tool to interface with git. Commands are based around atomic actions I want to perform, despite often triggering multiple git commands under the hood. This has reduced my overall mental overhead, and removed many footguns.
I have a funny little habit that probably stems from a certain degree of paranoia when working on a decent-sized change. I like to keep a local patch of it, as follows: "git diff > works.patch"
Later on, you can apply it if necessary with "git apply works.patch".
Later on, you can apply it if necessary with "git apply works.patch".
You could use stash for just that use case (even multiple times to make multiple "patches").
For a more robuts method, you could also just commit (without pushing of course). Then, you can do "git reset --hard HEAD~1", and you have a pre-patch env ready for more work. When you need to re-do your commit, you can check reflog to get the ID.
Either way is, to me, an easier way to achieve the same result as patches.
For a more robuts method, you could also just commit (without pushing of course). Then, you can do "git reset --hard HEAD~1", and you have a pre-patch env ready for more work. When you need to re-do your commit, you can check reflog to get the ID.
Either way is, to me, an easier way to achieve the same result as patches.
Instead of looking up the commit hash in your reflog, you could also just create a branch on that commit and refer to the commit with the branch name.
Do you find that better than a stash or a branch because it shows up in ls?
Yes, it can be nice as an archival thing. Keep a directory filled with experimental patches you made to certain parts of your code. Maybe branches are better for certain use cases.
I use stash too, but for different purposes. For instance, when I'd like to quickly change branches to fix a bug/issue and then come back to my stuff. Sometimes, I use stash for resolving potentially complicated pre-commit merges as well.
I use stash too, but for different purposes. For instance, when I'd like to quickly change branches to fix a bug/issue and then come back to my stuff. Sometimes, I use stash for resolving potentially complicated pre-commit merges as well.
Read once here, the best cheat sheet is one you create yourself. In my case, with fish shell or bash history search with fzf, I've effectively created a cheat sheet of commands I frequently tend to use with working examples. Seems to be working for me so far.
Git has its quirks, but the underlying model is good.
There's some naming problems, like I just had to explain lightweight tags vs annotated ones to some newbies.
The lightweight ones should have had a different name, like "bookmarks" or something.
There's some naming problems, like I just had to explain lightweight tags vs annotated ones to some newbies.
The lightweight ones should have had a different name, like "bookmarks" or something.
`git rebase --onto FIRST_ID^ NEW_PARENT`
is also super powerful to put a series of commits on top of a new parent when history has changed.
That happens with PRs and squash merges quite often.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/29916361/1000145
is also super powerful to put a series of commits on top of a new parent when history has changed.
That happens with PRs and squash merges quite often.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/29916361/1000145
> Find every commit that added or removed some text
> git log -S banana
I literally spend half an hour the other day having an argument with chatGPT about how I could find versions of a file that contained a specific string. Guess I should have asked for commits and not versions of files.
I literally spend half an hour the other day having an argument with chatGPT about how I could find versions of a file that contained a specific string. Guess I should have asked for commits and not versions of files.
git log -G is much more often what I want - diff contains some text but doesn't necessarily add or remove it.
Julia Evans' content is always high quality.
i have many aliases [1] for everything i ever need to do in git, serves me great for the past couple of years
[1] https://github.com/looshch/configs/blob/master/.gitconfig
[1] https://github.com/looshch/configs/blob/master/.gitconfig
Are there git alternatives that aren't a PITA to master before one can use them in production?
Subversion. It was made by CVS maintainers and a lot of care and thought was put into how it works and how the commands work and what the names of the commands are. Subversion is limited in being an older model of version control where there is exactly one single source of truth.
In my mind Git solves a different problem that Linus Torvalds was facing: many people working in parallel with only some of the ideas pushed upstream, but many people wanting to make changes and easily being able to move forward to the latest changes from upstream.
My extremely opinionated view is that most people should use Subversion unless they have a very complicated team structure. And that means every solo dev working by themselves should not complicate their own lives by using Git unless they are really comfortable with it already.
In my mind Git solves a different problem that Linus Torvalds was facing: many people working in parallel with only some of the ideas pushed upstream, but many people wanting to make changes and easily being able to move forward to the latest changes from upstream.
My extremely opinionated view is that most people should use Subversion unless they have a very complicated team structure. And that means every solo dev working by themselves should not complicate their own lives by using Git unless they are really comfortable with it already.
Git is well worth learning for any kind of collaboration or speculative work. It's fundamentally better at resolving merge conflicts, because it doesn't rely on being informed about which files may have been moved or copied. The Subversion maintainers owe me days of effort salvaging my small team's branches.
I have just the opposite view of yours! Subversion is so so complex. It requires a client and a server. It might have a nice UI, but its internals are a mess. Just the opposite of git!
Why would a solo dev choose to use a client-server version control instead of one that works fully locally?
Why would a solo dev choose to use a client-server version control instead of one that works fully locally?
Subversion does not require a server :-)
You can ask Subversion to create a repository anywhere you like in the filesystem.
You can ask Subversion to create a repository anywhere you like in the filesystem.
Jujutsu! Git-compatible and a generational leap in source control that most people are going to love.
As a former member of Meta's source control team, I believe this with pretty high confidence -- many of the workflows that we rolled out within Mercurial/Sapling, and caused it to consistently be the most loved developer tool at Meta for many years based on surveys and interviews, have been adopted and improved by Jujutsu. See my testimonial, the first one at [2].
[1] https://martinvonz.github.io/jj
[2] https://martinvonz.github.io/jj/latest/testimonials
(Disclosure: I'm obviously biased towards the Jujutsu workflows, and its creator and I worked together on Mercurial. But I like to think that this specific belief of mine is pretty data-driven, both via stated and revealed preference.)
As a former member of Meta's source control team, I believe this with pretty high confidence -- many of the workflows that we rolled out within Mercurial/Sapling, and caused it to consistently be the most loved developer tool at Meta for many years based on surveys and interviews, have been adopted and improved by Jujutsu. See my testimonial, the first one at [2].
[1] https://martinvonz.github.io/jj
[2] https://martinvonz.github.io/jj/latest/testimonials
(Disclosure: I'm obviously biased towards the Jujutsu workflows, and its creator and I worked together on Mercurial. But I like to think that this specific belief of mine is pretty data-driven, both via stated and revealed preference.)
Mercurial if you're not on a huge code base. While the core command-line hg works great, GUIs and third-party programs are kind of lacking.
Atlassian Sourcetree in theory works with Hg (because Atlassian's Bitbucket used Mercurial as their primary version control system before moving to git) but SourceTree is Windows/Mac only, there is no Linux version for some strange reason.
Trying to run SourceTree on Linux via WINE fails because Sourcetree can't be installed with the 'Administrator' user and recent WINE releases have (accidentally?) removed the ability to run a WINE program as a non-Administrator user.
I haven't personally tried (yet) to install Sourcetree on a Windows machine and copy the directory over and try via WINE, but it's on my list to do.
Atlassian Sourcetree in theory works with Hg (because Atlassian's Bitbucket used Mercurial as their primary version control system before moving to git) but SourceTree is Windows/Mac only, there is no Linux version for some strange reason.
Trying to run SourceTree on Linux via WINE fails because Sourcetree can't be installed with the 'Administrator' user and recent WINE releases have (accidentally?) removed the ability to run a WINE program as a non-Administrator user.
I haven't personally tried (yet) to install Sourcetree on a Windows machine and copy the directory over and try via WINE, but it's on my list to do.
This whole thread got me to go back and see what else is out there and I remembered there's another (potentially) saner choice: Fossil : https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki
I haven't used it myself but I might for a solo project I'm involved in right now.
A good read (not my article, linked from the Fossil site):
https://wholesomedonut.prose.sh/using-fossil-not-git
I haven't used it myself but I might for a solo project I'm involved in right now.
A good read (not my article, linked from the Fossil site):
https://wholesomedonut.prose.sh/using-fossil-not-git
A small, simple subset of git? You generally don't need all the esoteric stuff people complain about day-to-day.
Pretty much what is listed in the OP cheat sheet.
Pretty much what is listed in the OP cheat sheet.
git is now so ubiquitous in software development, that it's hard to justify learning another version control system. You're probably better off learning the core concepts and using the most common git commands through some GUI.
this is a better one: https://medium.com/@lordmoma/so-you-think-you-know-git-673f9...
Unfortunately, this requires creating a Medium account and signing in. Maybe it also requires payment later on.
This is the message I see.
> The author made this story available to Medium members only.
> If you’re new to Medium, create a new account to read this story on us.
This is the message I see.
> The author made this story available to Medium members only.
> If you’re new to Medium, create a new account to read this story on us.
Non login-walled link:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
Thanks, but alas, doesn't work: I can see the content flash by for an instant, but then it goes away and there's only some Google boilerplate text.
For listing branches, git branch -vv gives some more info.
the one thing that is handy and missing here is creating and pushing tags.
git reset HEAD is nifty way to unstage everything! Really cool!
These cheat sheets are a great idea spoiled somewhat by the use of an infuriatingly annoying-to-read font.
If your mission is to make hard topics easier to understand, why are you using a hard-to-read font whose only purpose is to make the cheat sheet look folksy?
If your mission is to make hard topics easier to understand, why are you using a hard-to-read font whose only purpose is to make the cheat sheet look folksy?
git fetch origin <branch_name>:<branch_name>
to update a branch while you're on another branch
to update a branch while you're on another branch
She delivers, yet again.
Thanks!
Thanks!
git diff --staged (shows the diff between the last commit and what you've got staged, great when what you're staging is finicky, lets you double check that you have precisely the files/hunks you intended)
git log <file> (git log, but for just commits where <file> was touched; saves pilfering through all of git log, especially useful when the file only gets modified infrequently)
Random tip: when using git add --patch, try the 'e' option if you need more nuance than the hunks git provides (it contains instructions for how to ex/include individual lines, so you don't have to remember how to do it).