Removing staging seems a little odd. To me staging, especially with a GUI like Sourcetree, is almost the best part of git.
I get that you can use it for partial commits of in flight work but that's never something I've needed in practice. Usually I just want to commit everything I'm working on at once.
That said, you could extend your argument such that you should always commit every touched file but that would be awful.
Using the index to stage and commit hunks separately lets you easily add and commit the unrelated TODO and FIXME comments separately from the code. A tool like Magit makes it trivially easy to do.
And since they're comments, they have no effect on tests or the code.
In other words, go ahead and break your builds six ways from Sunday, but they won't get merged until they pass based solely on the state of the repo.
Should I get those changes committed? I should. But that involves a lot more testing and thought, since it still has to work for other people with different local dev setups.
I'll often touch multiple files over the course of a few hours, sometimes for slightly unrelated changes, and then want to pull apart the changes into several smaller logical commits. Sometimes a couple hunks in a file might need to go into Commit A, while others go into Commit B.
You can do piecemeal adding of hunks via the CLI, but the interface is horrible. Being able to simply click "Add Hunk" in a GUI is incredibly valuable (or even in some cases shift-clicking a couple lines and "Add Lines").
I really don't understand what's so difficult about the index... It's just the stuff you will be inserting into the repository when you next commit. Having it separated enables a very convenient workflow that would've required manually using patch and diff when using tools that don't support you.
Git is more than just revision storage. I like to think of code as clay, and the index as a tool you use to mould that into the final construct that gets baked
As far as I can see the use case you describe is actually covered in gl commit.
Now, if you want to exclude certain files from a commit I will freely admit this is a pain. The easiest way, especially if you have loads of untracked files you don't want to commit, is to do:
% git commit -a && git reset HEAD~ <file> && git commit --amend
However staging is still a useful concept, and "gl commit" as far as I can tell doesn't really allow me to do something I do quite often ("git add -p" to add partial hunks of a change to staging for a commit). I recognise that I'm probably in the vast minority (outside of the kernel community) when it comes to my Git usage, but staging is definitely quite important for some Git usecases.
I don't quite understand the use of the command line for git or hg.
In my typical workflow before I commit I want to quickly review all the changes I just made. With the GUI you have a list of files and when a file is selected a diff of that file, without opening a new window. That means you can browse all the diffs in a few seconds just by moving the cursor along the changed files. If you see an unrelated change that doesn't have an impact you can just uncheck these lines to remove these changes from the commit. Or uncheck the file itself if all its changes are unrelated. I feel I'm much more confident of what ends up in the commit than using the cli.
I can see how a TUI/GUI for being able to quickly stage things from the UI is useful, but it doesn't make the concept of the index useless on the command line either.
Using git from the command line is second nature to me at this point, and the index is a large part of my workflow. When I use git for revision control (as opposed to eg. Subversion. Or anything that doesn't have lightweight branching, something akin to an index, and rebases), it feels like the tool is helping me organize my commits instead of just being a place to shove things after I'm done coding.
I use that everyday. Whatever you imagined we command line people use, it is just not accurate, IMO.
You might say this is trading one complexity (staging area) for another. But you need to be familiar with these commands anyway, so you might as well use the same things for other tasks. Plus, they're visualised on the same revision graph as everything else (e.g. "oh look, one month ago I saved that private commit").
Mercurial has a few properties that make this easier than in git. For example, there is no concept of detached head / garbage collection; when you save a commit, it is simply saved forever unless you choose to forcably remove it. (I have never found myself wishing for Git's refs and heads; they are just straight up unnecessary.) But I could imagine a git wrapper that had these properties too (e.g. when I checkout an old revision, it automatically creates a new branch with a special name that refs the commit I'm leaving behind).
(PS: Having said all of this, 90% of the time I just go ahead and commit and push everything, and 90% of rest of the time it suffices to just untick the checkboxes next to files that I don't want to commit before clicking the commit button in TortoiseHg. This is massively easier than any of these strategies, and it's opt-in. I'm sure there is a command line way to do this but I find a GUI is great for this task because it's quite visual.)
I don't get it. What does mercurial have instead of refs?
HEAD in git is just one kind of a ref; differentiated from a branch only by when the tooling updates it (ie. when you create a commit in the checked out branch, or when you check out another commit)
"branches" are mutable references. "remote" branches are just refs pointing at the commit that was the remote branch the last time you fetched it to your local repository. They're all the same thing in the end, though.
The way Mercurial branches seem to be a special thing instead of a property of the structure of a repository is partially why I prefer git.
In git, the fact that a "named branch" is actually just a ref to a particular commit that gets updated occasionally makes perfect sense to me. The way mercurial does it has never clicked; why does a branch have to be something special?
I mean, in git, a branch that has no ref pointing to it is still a branch, but if you have no reference to a commit, why would its existence matter? Sure, you can end up "losing" commits when working with rebase, but no-one actually leaves their repo that way if the commit was important; you just look it up from the reflog and give it a name again, and it won't get garbage collected.
And after a branch is merged, why would you keep around a named reference to a branch head that no longer matters? IIRC mercurial has a feature to "close" branches, but I don't understand why that even needs to be a thing? In git, you just delete unnecessary branches (that is, refs), and you're done.
Maybe I misunderstand how mercurial works, but I've not found a source explaining the rationale behind why it works this way.
When you switch branch in Mercurial, in principle it simply looks through all commits to determine the latest one with that branch name. In practice I'm sure there is a cache of this, which is the closest there is to git refs, but that is totally transparent. All commits must have a branch name, and the first commit’s branch name is usually "default" (equivalent to git's "master"). That close branch feature you mentioned is a special type of commit that stops that branch from being included in the list of branches, but the branch still exists because all previous commits to it still do.
This has a few consequences compared to Git's branches, which may be good or bad depending on the situation and your personal opinion. One is that a commit cannot be a member of more than one branch. Another is that branches are far less mutable than they are in Git; to change the branch that a commit is in you must actually destroy and re-create that commit (e.g. with rebase).
Another consequence is that it is fine for a branch to have multiple heads; just go back to a slightly older revision and commit again. Or, more commonly, pull after making your own commits and find someone else has committed to the same branch. (If you prefer: find that someone else has made some commits with the same "branch name" metadata.) Usually this situation is only transient because you would merge or rebase. Indeed, you cannot create multiple heads for a branch on a remote repo unless you force push, so you'd normally merge/rebase before pushing.
Another bit of commit metadata is state: public, draft or secret. Commits are draft when you create them, essentially meaning "not pushed". Public commits are ones that have been pushed to or pulled from a remote repo. In git, to see what things look like on the remote, you’d use the remote ref; in Mercurial, you’d look at the public commits. Admittedly you lose the ability to understand which remote repo a commit was seen on, whereas git supports multiple remotes. (During a push, Mercurial will still check whether “public” commits are on a remote repo and push them if necessary.) You can mark a commit as “secret” and then it will not be pushed unless you change its state back. This is what I use when I commit something for my own reference later on, which I was talking about in my previous comment. Often when I rebase, I leave the original commits behind and mark them as secret in case something goes wrong.
I can see you think branches are "something special" in Mercurial. Maybe in Git you could use refs to implement something totally different to branches, whereas in Mercurial you're stuck with that exact implementation. But refs seem like an unnecessary implementation detail to me. I never want to implement something similar but not quite the same as branches; I just want branches to work! And by not having any refs whatsoever the system seems quite a bit simpler.
In git, a branch is a branch by virtue of being an actual physical branch in the data structure.
To elaborate, I think a branch having multiple heads is not really a good thing, since that leads to the actual structure being one or more branches (each point of divergence results in a branch in the commit lineage), but only one name to refer to the collection of commits making up those branches. That abstraction doesn't agree with me.
Since a branch (a lineage of commits) is unambiguously defined by its head commit, having a named ref as the branch abstraction makes more sense to me. I don't know how it could be any simpler.
It looks like mercurial has a staging area, just that the default it to stage everything unless the user says so, rather than the other way as in git.
Funny that people are mostly unaware of mercurial supporting this - I would argue not using it by default it pretty user friendly, so long as you know it's there when you need it. I use it pretty often, but it's nice not having the boxes unchecked by default. I usually do want to commit everything.
Relatedly, totoisehg is the reason I don't use git for my personal projects. No git gui that works on Linux comes close.
Staging is quite useful if you want to create several commits (perhaps fixup commits, perhaps whole commits) based on the current repository state. This is why you can do "git add -p" to add parts of files to staging.
You mentioned later in the thread that you prefer stashing -- but Git doesn't let you stash certain files (you have to stash the entire state), and in addition stashing has a much more awful UX than commits (it's represented as a stack which means you have to pop elements off it -- and you've then lost that stack entry and you can't pop the stack with uncommitted changes). If there is one aspect of Git's UX that needs to be massively redesigned it would be "git stash".
Maybe there are other ways to do this but for me it's the perfect workflow.
But I have to admit, I mostly used it via Github and as a solo-dev.