[mostafaberg]

I personally never use GUI clients for git, the CLI does exactly what it's supposed to do, efficiently, quickly in a stable reproducible manner, most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly.

But some tips for your project: 1-Lose the forced email registration 2-Easy on the Luxury, we're devs not divas 3-The beta agreement is just way too scary to take the product seriously, examples:

>Company grants Recipient a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the GitKraken (“Product”) for a period designated by the Company for the purpose of testing and evaluating the Product.

>This Product is a beta release offering and is not at the level of performance of a commercially available product offering. The Product may not operate correctly and may be substantially modified prior to first commercial release, or at Company’s option may not be released commercially in the future.

How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products ? I'm not trying to sound harsh, this is just my views and I think I've got a point right?

[oneeyedpigeon]

"most GUI clients are for people who just don't want to learn to use the CLI properly"

Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it.

"How do you expect to compete with other existing and stable products?"

It's a beta. The T's & C's pretty much translate as "it's a beta". What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way. And pretty much all FLOSS software excuses itself from any kind of warranty too.

[dvirsky]

I use both with git, nothing wrong with that. A GUI client for committing which allows me to better look at diffs and makes selecting files for staging easier, not having to do `git status` all the time; and the command line for everything else - pulls, merges, rebases, cherry picking etc etc.

[seanp2k2]

You might also like: https://github.com/magicmonty/bash-git-prompt

Basically shows you 'git status' at a glance, all the time. More for bash people: https://github.com/Bash-it/bash-it (similar to ooh my zsh)

https://github.com/alebcay/awesome-shell#for-developers

PyCharm / any IntelliJ-based IDE, Atom, vim, emacs etc can also all nicely show git status of your current project. I'd suggest one of those as well in whatever flavor of editor you prefer.

[dvirsky]

I'm using mostly IntelliJ / PyCharm and Atom which indeed show me that status. I usually commit either with IntelliJ directly (though sometimes it's too inclusive which is annoying), or with gitg.

[ElegantGiraffe]

My current workflow makes extensive use of these commands:

  git add --patch
  git commit -v

The --patch option allows you to interactively select which changes to add to the index. It also applies to other commands like checkout or reset.

The -v flag shows a diff of what will be committed in the editor.

[mostafaberg]

>Ridiculously arrogant comment with nothing to back it up. GUIs exist; get over it.

A simple google search for "How to use git without command line" will show you the amount of people who are looking for just that, I said most, not all, I believe git is a developer tool that's mostly used by dev who can navigate their way around CLI, lately i've seen and worked with non devs who want to just use GUI tools to help them around without having to know the details of what's going under the hood, this submission is a good example of that, it lacks every single tool that a developer that works in a big team with a big codebase needs. so yes, it's a tool for people who don't want to use the CLI properly. nothing arrogant at all.

>It's a beta. The T's & C's pretty much translate as "it's a beta". What do you want them to do, NOT release a beta? Fair enough if so, but a lot of software is released this way. And pretty much all FLOSS software excuses itself from any kind of warranty too.

This doesn't seem to be exactly a FLOSS per say, but I get your point, they're just doing it the wrong way, if you're gonna start something that you want to be on par with other tools, at least get out your beta with the same features, then add up on that post beta, but they're not doing that, they're releasing a GUI tool that has the basics of git, with videos and js animations. and if i'm going to even consider using that in a production environment I'd rather have a more serious T&C that will make me feel a bit safe that this thing will be supported and will live on for a few years ahead and not die, "It's just a beta" is something i'm really tired of hearing as an excuse to a crippled product, gmail was in beta for way to long and it was superior to all existing email solutions at the time, no one would've used it if it only supported sending and receiving emails, I wouldn't call his git client a beta either, it's more of an alpha experimental product IMHO.

[hobarrera]

Then again, this isn't even close to FLOSS, it's license is extremely restrictive, with quite a few gray areas IMHO.

[adrianN]

I find a GUI very convenient for picking chunks that I'd like to commit.

[sixo]

Whenever you make an action using a GUI, you can clearly see what options are available to you, even if you're not using them. It's unreasonable for every person to invest the time to fully internalize the capabilities of every tool they use. The more (good) GUIs available, the better.

[jibsen]

Last time I saw GitKraken mentioned, I must admit I chose not to try it due to the license (which reads more like a NDA).