I think that it's not a matter of whether someone uses the CLI or a graphical client for this, but more the overall experience, mindset and workflow of that person.
I personally always use a git diff to see what I changed and what I want to commit. If I'm happy with all unstaged changes being committed I use git add ., but if I see "garbage", I simply use git add -p .
After that I do a git diff --staged and if nothing went wrong I do a simple git commit -m with a descriptive commit message. When I'm done I do a git checkout -- <file> to get rid of the garbage that I didn't commit, or a simple git reset --hard if I really don't wanna keep anything.
What I think is that you can be as careless with both the CLI as you can be with a graphical client, it depends on how much effort you want to put into keeping your Git history clean and organized.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think that it's not a matter of whether someone uses the CLI or a graphical client for this, but more the overall experience, mindset and workflow of that person.
I personally always use a
git diffto see what I changed and what I want to commit. If I'm happy with all unstaged changes being committed I usegit add ., but if I see "garbage", I simply usegit add -p .After that I do a
git diff --stagedand if nothing went wrong I do a simplegit commit -mwith a descriptive commit message. When I'm done I do agit checkout -- <file>to get rid of the garbage that I didn't commit, or a simplegit reset --hardif I really don't wanna keep anything.What I think is that you can be as careless with both the CLI as you can be with a graphical client, it depends on how much effort you want to put into keeping your Git history clean and organized.