tig VS Git

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 :-)

If you are looking for more interactivity while remaining on the commandline, have you looked at Tig? Tig has a view for browsing refs, and you can sort by date.

Boy, I can't find this either (but also, the kernel mailing list is _really_ difficult to search). I really remember Linus saying something like "it's not a real SCM, but maybe someone could build one on top of it someday" or something like that, but I cannot figure out how to find that.

You _can_ see, though, that in his first README, he refers to what he's building as not a "real SCM":

https://github.com/git/git/commit/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23...

Here is the direct link, as HN somehow removes the query string: https://github.com/git/git/commits?author=peff&since=2023-10...

I understand all that.

I'm saying, if you write a survey and one of the possible answers is "diff", but you don't clearly define what you mean by "diff", then don't be surprised if respondents use any reasonable definition that makes sense to them. Ask an ambiguous question, get a mishmash of answers.

The thing that Git uses for packfiles is called a "delta" by Git, but it's also reasonable to call it a "diff". After all, Git's delta algorithm is "greatly inspired by parts of LibXDiff from Davide Libenzi"[1]. Not LibXDelta but LibXDiff.

Yes, how Git stores blobs (using deltas) is orthogonal to how Git uses blobs. But while that orthogonality is useful for reasoning about Git, it's not wrong to think of a commit as the totality of what Git does, including that optimization. (Some people, when learning Git, stumble over the way it's described as storing full copies, think it's wasteful. For them to wrap their heads around Git, they have to understand that the optimization exists. Which makes sense because Git probably wouldn't be practical if it lacked that optimization.)

The reason I'm bringing all this up is, if you're trying to explain Git, which is what the original article is about, then it's very important to keep in mind that someone who is learning Git needs to know what you mean when you say "diff". Most people who already know Git would tend to gravitate toward the definition of "diff" that you're assuming (the thing that Git computes on the fly and never stores), but people who already know Git aren't the target audience when you're teaching Git.

---

[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/diff-delta.c

Didn't Git have a new default merge strategy, `ort` https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNote... ?

Yes, but you are referring to standalone scripts, not functions defined within a Bash script.

Compare for example the following helper code used for git command completion inside Bash and inside PowerShell.

Bash: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/gi...