The visualization of branches becomes nigh pointless when you have a lot of disjoint developers in a codebase. Otherwise, I used to have this same setup.
Emacs Magit Mode:<p>[F2] g l l<p><a href="http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Magit" rel="nofollow">http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Magit</a>
This is a rather linkbait-y title. "git log is so 2005... git log is where it's at!"<p>I actually thought that this was originally going to be an overview of tig[0] which has completely replaced git log for me.<p>[0] <a href="https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-tig/" rel="nofollow">https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-tig/</a>
I find git aliases to be essential. Things just become too unwieldy without them.<p>This is what my .gitconfig looks like right now:
<a href="https://github.com/bilalq/dotfiles/blob/master/git/gitconfig" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/bilalq/dotfiles/blob/master/git/gitconfig</a>
Terminal to modify repository data, SourceTree (or whatever GUI you want) to get your bearings. ;)<p>I hardly ever use git log anymore since SourceTree lets me know very easily who commited when, when and from what branch. What's not to love?
The --graph option is nice and cool looking but it gets incredibly slow with big repositories like the linux kernel, so I still use good old "git log" for that reason.
I can't remember the last time I ran 'git log.'<p>Rather, I use tig to get a quick glance at commit history and staged / unstaged changes.<p>Can someone explain the relative upsides and downsides to using tig vs git lg?
I've tried these prettified `git log`s, but I always go back to the default: I prefer having the whitespace and everything being on a consistent column, instead of dancing all over the shop. But that's just me.
Also see <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4130494" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4130494</a>, from 2012.