>git commit >git push

>using git diff in the year 2016 of our lord

> Not using mercurial

>>58097313
would you rather use the junk called svn?

cereal

>>58097333
Svn isn't great but goddamn is it nice not having to type a few commands and instead right click to grab a single file from a git folder.

>>58097485
>using git on cmdline
it's like you just want to do things the annoying way

be smart, use a gui like gitkraken, anon

>>58097537
This is /g/, anon. You can't just recommend software that uses a GUI.

>>58097580
/g/'s social norms can kiss my ass

File: images.duckduckgo.com~2.jpg (14KB, 238x185px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x185px

>git rebase
>git push -f

>>58097626
Why would you want to be an outcast on the Internet too?

>>58097626
>Total rejection by society
Wow, a post written by a 100% social reject. Total freedom.

>>58097537
It's so fucking easy though.

Can you select single files from a folder with git now? When I say right click with Svn it's literally a single right click, url, file is here.

>>58097537
I've been using git for a while now.

Every single gui for git is worse than the command-line version, with the sole exception being magit, which is probably one of the most well-designed pieces of software ever made.

The git command-line version has come a long way over the years, it's a really good way to use git.

>>58097642
this is actually good git ethic if you work on a branch in isolation and want to keep the timeline and history of each file down to the essential

>>58097711
no, because that's not the git workflow. I don't even know, source control aside, why you'd even want that. Every "version" of a branch is a whole, you can't just pull only parts of it, that makes no sense. What you can do is just pull everything and selectively revert the stuff you don't want, which gets you the same thing. If you're gonna say "see how complicated git is?", you brought up a really edgy usecase.

>>58097718
can't agree, anon. sourcetree and gitkraken are comfy as fuck to me, and I've used all of it: git cmdline, svn gui, and git gui

>>58097801
>That's not the git work flow
What? Say I want to edit a single image in a folder of images on git, I'd have to download the entire repo just to fuck with that single image.

Just a few weeks ago I used svn to grab a gigantic script file from git because it was nested in a fuckery of folders and unnecessary bloat

>>58097885
if you don't have the file, you have to update to a commit where the file exists. You edit it, and then merge onto main. You'll have to download everything until that commit, not necessarily anything after that. This is a non-issue because in 2016 you're not supposed to be working on a potato network, nor are you supposed to be weeks behind on the repo. If you've got such a huge amount of images that the download is hindersome, I ask you why do you have tons of binary files in a source control system in the first place. The place I worked at last had a project worked on by a team of ~5 people every day for 5 years, with hundreds of thousands of lines of code and a hundred commits each day. Repo size was 1GB.