Hi, I just built something to help my wife's clinic by quantifying the problems patients come with - give it a try for free (don't treat it as medical advise without talking to your dermatologist). I don't store any data - everything gets deleted in a day.
CLI is fine until you acquire a habit of committing things chunk-wise and line-wise. E.g., I have these 20 files modified, but I'll quickly skim through and add/commit the lines/chunks that are done, and then continue working on the rest. CLI promotes a different kind of workflow, like "ok, I'm done, add/commit it all, and then move on".
What do you feel the UI does better than git add -p? The main concession I have is picking arbitrary files, but I feel like I've achieved 90%+ of what I want with '.cs' or 'Controller*' etc.
It's more streamlined, it's easier to scroll through staged and unstaged changes fast and flip lines/hunks/whatever between the two as you go, and you don't have to fire an external editor upon each hunk because you're already in one - emacs or vim (if using spacemacs).
(Also, whether it's good or not, rebasing in all of its forms becomes your second nature because it becomes so easy...)
If you're selecting by hunk, you don't need to fire up the editor. I also find the hunk selection in the terminal to be excellent. It's lightning fast and I can use it blind.
Also, firing up the editor for things like editing diffs when doing git add -p or when editing operations when doing git rebase -i, is not that big of a deal if you keep your editor light. Vim, for me, loads in an instant.
Agreed, selecting by hunk is ok in the terminal, I do it too sometimes when sshed someplace distant.
But you noted the two main differences yourself: (1) you don’t have to think in terms of git hunks if you don’t want to, lines or any blocks are as easy to deal with and (2) you don’t have to think about whether it would be quick or not to fire an editor because you don’t have to fire an editor.
This, plus everything’s lightning fast due to shortcuts. I use Magit in spacemacs and rebasing is very easy. I’ve done it so many hundreds of times that I can tell it from memory - e.g., fixup-merging the last two commits to the third one: “lljjriff,,” (maybe there’s a quicker way) - that’s less than typing git rebase -i.
Not trying to preach, just sharing why magit users are so happy about it.
Don't you have that backwards? With `git add -p`'s `e`(dit) option, I can (and occasionally do) add just some of the changes of a single line. I can freely edit the diff that dictates what goes in the index. With magit, I believe I'm limited to just selecting whole hunks or maybe whole lines.
It’s possible via ediff if you need it; magit devs didn’t want to implement it within magit itself IIUC because it’s fragile and changes in a temporary buffer may be lost, or something like that.
If you don’t like using ediff and really need to edit tons of hunks before staging, you could always commit/stash your dirty copy, revert back, edit files, check them in the way you want, possibly in multiple commits, then rebase your previously staged working copy on a new head and soft reset the head (it’s easier than it sounds) - which is the way I would do it in the terminal too if there was a lot to edit since it’s more fail-proof.
You're missing out on the lightning fast pull, interactive rebase, staging and commit capabilities of magit-status. The key bindings are intuitive and excellent.
They are intuitive and excellent, but I don't think they make things that much faster if at all. There's not much difference in speed between doing `C-x g s c -a c` and typing `git ci -a`.
> "Because the majority of doctors are overworked, exhausted, and discontent, they've normalized their misery and pretend that it's not as bad as it seems"
This quote from the study hit me.
So many people are unhappy with the amount of unproductive work they do (e.g. administration work for doctors). But no one wants to change it?
If you haven't read "Why Doctors Hate Their Computers" [0] I highly recommend it. It relates exactly to what you're talking about (in terms of boring admin work) and applies to more than just doctors.
My takeaway was that while doctors hate the very structured process and busywork, the hospital admins think it is better for the patient and better for the institution.
In some ways it makes sense. It's hard to refine and make a process consistent when every doctor does things different or doesn't properly record everything. On the other hand it removes a lot of agency from the doctors and leaves them unfulfilled.
It's mass production principles applied to "knowledge" work.
There was a time when one person would make a whole chair. I imagine it was at least somewhat fulfilling to transform a bunch of wood into a functional object.
As time went on it became clear that it was more efficient to break it into component parts, blah blah blah, assembly line. After the assembly line (but before automation) there were a lot of people "making" chairs, but I'm sure the guy fixing the right arm in place didn't feel as fulfilled as the original craftsperson.
We're getting that to some degree in hospitals now. Hospital admins want the ability to tinker with procedure, to know what's going on in a real, measured way and maximize efficiency. It just so happens that it leaves the doctors a whole hell of a lot less fulfilled.
I'm not saying that we're, by any means, qualified to self diagnose. The problem with your analogy is there are physical attributes/tests that tell doctors what is wrong when dealing with physiological problems. Even when the methods rely on us telling the doctors, it's usually a binary choice. On the other hand, it gets a lot more subjective when it comes to mental health.
This is the most comprehensive setup I found, and I have modified it to suit my workflow.
I use dropbox to save all the Org files, which I can open (view/edit) on my phone with Orgzly.
As a philosophy, I don't do everything I write in the task list. It is just there to keep my mind empty to think clearly. I actively find tasks to take off the list - by delegating it, by paying someone else to do it, or by just saying no to those tasks.
> It's a short life, so I want to be careful with this decision, to avoid any future regrets. Because I can't decide on this, I end up not getting anything done. Time continues to march on, while I'm still stuck with not knowing what to do.
I loved most of the advice other people have given you. Follow the advice that you think is the best, but remember, You are more than the work you do.
You are being too hard on yourself - take care of your mental health as well. Talk to someone you trust.
Your life goals and priorities will change throughout your life. In the end, everyone will have some regrets (for different reasons). You just get to choose your own.
