git-cola VS git-lfs

> Visual Studio does a decent job of abstracting the GIT nuances, but I personally use GIT Extensions, which looks and feels much better on Windows than the other cross platform UIs.

IDEs and text editors sometimes have nice Git integrations in the UI, but I wanted standalone software that I can use for anything from various programming projects, to something like gamedev projects (with Git LFS) or arbitrary documents.

In the end, I just forked over some money for GitKraken, it's pretty good, especially with multiple accounts on the same platforms, when you want to switch between them easily: https://www.gitkraken.com/

There's also Sourcetree which I used before then, kind of sluggish but feature complete: https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/

For something more lightweight, I also enjoyed Git Cola on various OSes: https://git-cola.github.io/ Even Git documentation has a page on the software out there, a good deal of which is free and has good platform support: https://git-scm.com/downloads/guis

Quite frankly, I spend like 90% of the time using a GUI interface nowadays, when I want to easily merge things, or include very specific code blocks across multiple files in a commit, or handle most of the other common operations. Of course, sometimes there's a need to drop down to the CLI, but you're right that some GUI software feels like it actually improves the usability here.

I think Git can be a pretty pleasant experience for most folks, as long as you use the basic features and maybe even consider a GUI, anything from Git Cola (free: https://git-cola.github.io/), to something like GitKraken (paid for all features: https://www.gitkraken.com/).

Curiously, the latter also let me setup different accounts that I can switch between with a simple dropdown, which was otherwise annoying when you have Gitea, GitHub, GitLab and others to manage, way easier than https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/setting-up-an...

Either way, suddenly you see the graph of your repo and most of the common actions are a click away, you can just let your brain idle and think about other things you're doing instead, in addition to that working really well with staging chunks of your code, or individual files, cherrypicking and so on.

Then again, personally I prefer squashing in merge/pull requests instead of rebasing, or even just doing regular merge commits and leaving the history as is (which doesn't really scale, but I haven't gotten to the point where that matters that much), so how I use Git won't work for everyone.

> We now have a large selection of tools that allow you to visualize what's going on (I use git-kraken), as well as google for help on doing something that isn't in muscle memory.

Git Kraken is excellent, though Git has a page on various GUIs, many of which are free with no restrictions: https://git-scm.com/downloads/guis

Personally, on Windows I like SourceTree: https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/

Some that have worked with SVN back in the day like TortoiseGit: https://tortoisegit.org/

On *nix Git Cola seems to do the job for me: https://git-cola.github.io/

Then again, the most complex workflow I've worked with was Git Flow and I didn't need anything more advanced than that. Come to think of it, I don't really do rebases often either and mostly just take advantage of squashing commits through GitLab/Gitea and such, when needed.

But hey, that's also valid, using Git in a way where you get version control but mostly keep the technical details out of your way (though Git LFS and certain cases with particular line endings being needed does make you drop down occasionally).

Try git cola. It's not the slickest but it scratches my pointy/clicky desires for git pretty well.

If you can tolerate a GUI, Git Cola might be a solution. I'm using it exclusively for some 5 years now – it's lightweight enough, but still makes you think about what you're about to commit. You can add things to .gitignore directly from there, too.

https://git-cola.github.io/

Default layout is pretty barebones, here's what I'm doing instead: https://u.ale.sh/my-git-cola-screenshot.png

i still don't know how to split one commit into multiples (without going insane (if it's even possible)) without a gui like https://github.com/git-cola/git-cola, and that should be a simple operation (especially with git's "split every change into individual commits make it easier to cherry pick" conventions)

What's the difference between this and Git-LFS?

https://git-lfs.com/

It doesn't, since Git's data model has to be changed to content-defined chunks to solve the issue.

You should look at git-lfs[1] instead.

[1] https://git-lfs.com

Congrats on the HN launch. How does this improve or expand or blow git-lfs[1] out of the water because if I needed large blob file support it's what I would use instead. It offers pointers to the big files to the hosted git instead of pushing around the binaries itself -- though I am speculating since I've not used it myself just read about it online.

[1] https://git-lfs.com/

Specifics depend on project types, but literate programming[0] and using/enforcing coding/git/versioning standards helps. re: outdated responses -- email list for 'new/updated version available' with errata/change log location.

[0] : https://blog.bitsrc.io/literate-programming-a-radical-approa...

[1] : https://blog.codacy.com/coding-standards

[2] : https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/blob/main/.github/workflo...

fine with layers: e.g., large binary files via git-lfs (https://git-lfs.com) and merge conflicts in non-textual files by custom merge resolvers like Unity’s (https://flashg.github.io/GitMerge-for-Unity/).

Perhaps in the future, almost everyone will keep using Git at the core, but have so many layers to make it more intuitive and provide better merges, that what they’re using barely resembles Git at all. This flexibility and the fact that nearly everything is designed for Git and integrates with Git, are why I doubt it’s ever going away.

Some alternatives for thought:

- pijul (https://pijul.org), a completely different VCS which allegedly has better merges/rebases. In beta, but I rarely hear about it nowadays and have heard more bad than good. I don’t think we can implement this alternate rebases in Git, but maybe we don’t need to; even after reading the website, I don’t understand why pijul’s merges are better, and in particular I can’t think of a concrete example nor does pijul provide one.

- Unison (https://www.unison-lang.org). This isn’t a VCS, but a language with a radical approach to code representation: instead of code being text stored in files, code is ASTs referenced by hash and stored in essentially a database. Among other advantages, the main one is that you can rename symbols and they will automatically propagate to dependencies, because the symbols are referenced by their hash instead of their name. I believe this automatic renaming will be common in the future, whether it’s implemented by a layer on top of Git or alternate code representation like Unison (to be clear, Unison’s codebases are designed to work with Git, and the Unison project itself is stored in Git repos).

- SVN, the other widespread VCS. Google or ask ChatGPT “Git vs SVN” and you’ll get answers like this (https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/svn-vs-git/, https://stackoverflow.com/a/875). Basically, SVN is easier to understand and handles large files better, Git is decentralized and more popular. But what about the differences which can’t be resolved by layers, like lazygit for intuition and git-lfs for large files? It seems to me like even companies with centralized private repositories use Git, meaning Git will probably win in the long term, but I don’t work at those companies so I don’t really know.

- Mercurial and Fossil, the other widespread VCSs. It seems these are more similar to Git and the main differences are in the low-level implementation (https://stackoverflow.com/a/892688, https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki#....). It actually seems like most people prefer Mercurial and Fossil over Git and would use them if they had the same popularity, or at least if they had Git’s popularity and Git had Mercury or Fossil’s. But again, these VCSs are so similar that with layers, you can probably create a Git experience which has their advantages and almost copies their UI.

> I don’t know what that is

its a standard output from `go doc`, rendered as HTML. if you dont recognize that, then you aren't really in a position to be commenting on the topic. nothing is stopping anyone from pinning to a tag:

https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/tags

or even a commit and relying of a specific version of the software. yes upgrades might be painful but a module IS available.

# git push origin feature-branch /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential get: 1: /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential get: /usr/bin/gh: not found /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential store: 1: /usr/bin/gh auth git-credential store: /usr/bin/gh: not found Enumerating objects: 9228, done. Counting objects: 100% (7495/7495), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing objects: 100% (2090/2090), done. Writing objects: 100% (6033/6033), 72.77 MiB | 7.39 MiB/s, done. Total 6033 (delta 4402), reused 5194 (delta 3616) remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (4402/4402), completed with 477 local objects. remote: error: Trace: c1c90b47a5483929dcdd8c974a6c7d0695e86f67f680d8b88b80ef1c1bce74a remote: error: See https://gh.io/lfs for more information. remote: error: File deployment_20200220.sql is 872.78 MB; this exceeds GitHub's file size limit of 100.00 MB remote: error: GH001: Large files detected. You may want to try Git Large File Storage - https://git-lfs.github.com. To https://github.com/my-org/my-project.git ! [remote rejected] rest-logging -> rest-logging (pre-receive hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'https://github.com/my-org/my-project.git'