tig VS delta

https://github.com/jonas/tig is one of the first things I install on a new dev machine. It's a really nice UI for staging files or hunks. Since it's just a companion to the git CLI, it feels much more focused than full-blown git GUIs, and doesn't do anything magical.

Related but I use tig, a TUI, a lot to examine the state of my working tree and index and stage/unstage/reset changes piecemeal. It works great.

I'd like to plug [tig](https://github.com/jonas/tig) for those who don't use emacs. I see lazygit recommended here too, but I've been using tig for years now and love it's simplicity.

Try tig

I'm normally a CLI git (and tig) user.

Sometimes when I work in command line I use tig (https://jonas.github.io/tig/). There is also similar tool lazygit (https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit)

And you accidently open a git TUI

tig +My custom command to fix MR comments by quickly editing an old commit's changes at the time when that commit was created. (Like a more controlled git-absorb that explicitly selects a commit to fixup and therefor avoids rebase-conflicts when squashing)

today I looked at tig which is a nice text based GUI, and I think I will never use git log again :-)

Thanks for the difftastic & zoxide tips.

However, I've been using this git pager/difftool: https://github.com/dandavison/delta

While it's not structural like difft, it does produce more readable output for me (at least when scrolling fast through git log -p /scanning quickly

View on GitHub

I'm currently waiting on the integration between Delta and Difftastic:

https://github.com/dandavison/delta/issues/535

Difftastic now has JSON output, whic should make it much easier to build this.

I'm surely in the minority here. I've been using Emacs for almost a decade now, but I just can't get into the Magit workflow. I've tried several times, but always end up going back to Git on the command line. I have dozens of aliases, shell integrations, a nice diff viewer[1], etc., and interacting with Git has become muscle memory. I can commit, cherry-pick, rebase, bisect, fix conflicts, etc., in a fraction of the time it would take me to navigate Magit's UI. I'm sure with enough practice, a Magit user could do this more quickly and efficiently, but honestly, with some custom-built porcelain, Git's UI is not so bad. Though this could very well be Stockholm syndrome after using it for such a long time...

For whatever reason, Magit's opinionated workflows never clicked with me. A part of it is the concern that it will do something weird to my repo that I'll then have to waste more time undoing manually. I usually don't trust sugary wrappers around tools. And another is the fact I don't use Emacs on all machines, and setting up Git on a remote system is just a matter of copying over my config and some shell integrations.

Also, on a more personal note, I find the cultish fanboyism whenever Magit is brought up slightly offputting. Does anyone have anything bad to say about it? No software can realistically be this infallible. :)

[1]: https://github.com/dandavison/delta

For looking at diffs I still prefer the command line though, and use delta to view diffs between commits or branches.