Good luck doing anything remotely complicated/useful in git with an IDE. You get a small fraction of what git can do with a tool that allows absolutely 0 scripting and automation.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

IDE git is less powerful than CLI git. However I'm pretty confident that most people use more features of git by using a GUI.

CLI feature discoverability is pretty awful, you have to go out of your way and type git help to learn new commands.

With a GUI though, all the buttons are there, you just have to click a new button that you've been seeing for a while and the GUI will guide you how to use it.

[–] derpgon 10 points 1 year ago

It sounds like you don't speak from experience. I have all the automation I need. It supports git hooks on top of IDE-only features like code checking.

If I have to fire up my CLI for some mass history rewriting (like changing an author for every commit), or when the repo breaks - so be it. But by not using the CLI I save my fingers and sanity, because committing a bunch of files is several click away with little to no room for error.

I can rebase, patch, drop, rename, merge, revert, cherry pick, and solve conflicts with a click of a button rather than remembering all the commands and whatnot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I use the cli, but my main goal is to never have to do anything remotely complicated with git. Does it happen sometimes? Of course.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are automations. You can even add git hooks iirc. Mostly I find the lint and other code quality integrations nice to have in the IDE, since the inline results allow me to navigate directly to the code

Diffing is a lot easier too