Replies: 2 comments
-
I'm the linked comment, but my only argument to keep In other words, if you consider rotz an "interface", and git a dependency of that interface, then it kind of sucks to have rotz "leak" git to users. Abstraction is a great thing. You only really want to be working with one interface. Therefore, keeping But, git is hairy: it's so configurable and supports many workflows. It's hard to wrangle and generalize. Ultimately, I have trouble imagining any software supporting all that: managing working tree, staged files, commits, branches, remotes, remote branches, pushes, etc. This would be a large developer burden. Additionally, and this might just be me speaking, I feel more comfortable with git than another software interacting with it on my behalf. For this reasons, I'd say: get rid of If we're considering getting rid of
So, again, I'd say that |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Bro, I don’t even know exactly where I should say this, but THANK YOU SO MUCH for the tool. I absolutely LOVE IT, and I MEAN it like never before. This tool has saved me SO MUCH time, you can’t even imagine. Setting up OBS, editors, shells, prompts, git, and all that stuff—now it literally works with just TWO COMMANDS. Man, I can’t even explain how much more comfortable my life is now. :DD I just want you to know it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The
sync
command basically is a wrapper around git that stages all changes and then commits does a pull and then and pushes the changes.Currently there are some cases where it fails and making it stable would require a lot of work.
I don't actually use it most of the time and just do the git actions manually (or sometimes with vscode).
7 votes ·
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions