[ogrim]

I never trust anything but the commandline when it comes to git. Then I know full and well what I'm doing regardless of the editor. When there are too many icons and buttons to click I don't like to have to remember what they all mean, or how well they map to the underlying core git concepts.

[nailer]

I know what you mean, but for all its faults I like Sourcetree here: it doesn't use anything but what git does. You have a staging area, adding, interactive rebasing, everything uses gigs proper terminology. As opposed to the GitHub for Windows app for example which has new words.

[nallerooth]

+1 Graphical tools may help when presenting changes in a repo, but when it comes to making changes I too prefer the CLI.

[hungerstrike]

The commandline offers just as much opportunity to screw up your repository as a GUI does, if not more.

[aaronchall]

Here's the description for the man-page for git-clean:

> git-clean - Remove untracked files from the working tree

https://git-scm.com/docs/git-clean

Now I would call that description very precise and readable.

Here's the GUI's warning:

> Are you sure you wish to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!

What changes? He didn't change anything. Did the GUI change something? Maybe it did. Maybe nothing will happen.

Foolish not to back-up before experimenting? Sure. But GUI's imply friendliness to the inexperienced. This seems like bad UX.