I never understand apps like this. Surely if you're looking for this level of feature you may as well just use a GUI?
StudioLE
That's usually the case but with this and the Rwanda proposal I think they're doing it because their voters enjoy the optics and indignity of migrants being treated as sub human.
It's fine. The cost of compensating victims is less than fixing the issue so yeah it's safe.
I used to see this a lot with Facebook. Every time they altered the design people would kick up a fuss and I never understood why, the new design always looked far better.
Nowadays of course I don't use Facebook but will occasionally have to sign in to look up the details of a business or something. The design has of course changed and I can't find a damn thing on it. So I'm finally on board with the masses.
But they aren't getting forced to change accounts. Their service continues just under another provider.
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
I'll occasionally
- stash my changes
- unstash them.
- Revise the file in my editor so only the chunk I want to commit is present
- Commit
- Unstash the changes again to get back the uncommitted change
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?
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 think this might be what you're after