85
The git history command deserves more attention (lalitm.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Working with lots of changes in parallel on git can be painful. You end up juggling branches and commits, and running scary rebase -i commands that can leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze.

jj, an alternative to git, gets discussed a lot these days (1, 2, 3, 4) and is often pitched as a solution. While I’m very sold on the problems jj is trying to solve, the way it solves them hasn’t quite hit home with me. Every 3 months, for the last 1.5 years, I try it out for a few days, really trying to make it part of my workflow but eventually I give up and go back to git.

That’s where git history comes in.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Oh, nice! Does this do something like Git Butler where you can have multiple branches "checked out" simultaneously, and keep track of which changes belong to which of those branches as you work? But maybe without the commitment that Git Butler requires to using its tooling?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I've never used Git Butler, but looking at their site it looks like a whole UI layer on top of git.

    Topgit is just a small set of shell scripts that implement the various tg commands for managing your patch branches.

    It's based around the idea of patch queues, but since it's using git branches you can have a tree of patch branches instead of just a linear patch queue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent