I'll occasionally
It's clunky but it's robust and safe. It does sound a lot cleaner to just use commit -p though
-p --patch
Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.
This effectively runs add --interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand. See “Interactive mode” for details.
The documentation is entirely meaningless? What does it do?
I also found that an odd question.
"you ordered a two pack of Durex extra small and a packet of malteasers. Would you recommend them to a friend? "
No. Because who the hell recommends stuff..? Unless it's something truly unique im not going to recommend it
You've never used a graphical git client?!
I'm comfortable on the command line but a decent git UI is a way better experience.
git diff is so basic using a GUI makes it far easier to compare changes.
Same for merge conflicts. I'm not sure you can even resolve them on the CLI?
Any form of rebase: I think I used the CLI to do an interactive rebase a few times in the early days but I'd never do so without a GUI now.
Managing branches: perhaps I'm a little too ott but I keep a lot of branches preserved locally, a GUI provides a decent tree structure for them whereas I assume on the command line I'd just get a long list.
Managing stashes: unless you just want to apply latest stash (which admittedly is almost always the case) then I'd much rather check what I'm applying through a GUI first.
There are some things I still use the CLI for though:
git remote add git remote set-url because I'm just too lazy to figure out how to do that in a GUI. It's usually hidden away somewhere.
git push --force because every GUI makes it such an effort. C'mon! I know what I'm doing - it's /probably/ not going to mess things up...
Star rating systems don't accurately convey opinions. The majority of reviews will be either 5* or 1* with only a few wannabe critics voting in between applying their own arbitrary votes.
If Amazon are going to change things then why not adopt something more meaningful. Simple up/down votes for things that actually matter.
Was this product as described: 👍/👎
Are you satisfied with the quality: 👍/👎
Are you satisfied with the value for money: 👍/👎
Then a few optional questions for things that aren't relevant to the product such as postage/packaging etc.
I've no recollection of where I first read this: Get yourself a second dishwasher. Never again do you need to put away the dishes.
Always have one clean one to take dishes from while you're filling the other with dirty dishes. Once the other is filled turn it on and now the status is reversed.
I'd be interested to know how many days per year these centres are actually used. I'm presuming it's very few so it seems pretty logical to sell them off and instead rely on booking shared activity centres when they're actually required
That's assuming they were only using the tactics during those exact dates, but I imagine that's just the period the prosecutors could prove.
It all depends on your personal balance of risk vs convenience.
Your card details should be secure provided you follow standard security practices. So if you tire of manually inputting them all the time then go ahead.
If there ever is a vulnerability disclosed you can cancel your cards through your provider and have them re-issued. Finally, if you ever come across fraudulent purchases you can dispute them.
I will never comprehend how americans accept that store and restaurant prices aren't the price you'll pay
People who use the default email their ISP gives them don't like change. The new service will probably have a different login screen and that's going to upset aunty Ethel and uncle ron. And then a different colour background. It's the worst thing that anyone could ever do to them