r/git

Stacked PRs are great (in theory). Small changes, fast reviews, no mega-PRs that reviewers approve without reading because life is short.

In practice? Terrifying. You're rebasing chains of branches, retargeting bases mid-merge, and one wrong keystroke drops you into git archaeology at 5pm on a Friday.

Juniors bounce off them. I know because I watched myself bounce. Drone shot, from above, me at 2am wondering why my PR was suddenly targeting a branch that didn't exist anymore. Seniors know how to do it, they just also know how slow it is when someone merges to main under their feet and the whole chain needs redoing.

So I (with a little help from my friend) built Cairn. Keyboard-driven TUI for reviews, stacks, and the whole PR rodeo. Works today. And no, you don't have to sell a kidney to use it. https://github.com/dotnetemmanuel/Cairn

The idea: git-town owns the scary rebase math, Cairn is the cockpit. Zero hand-rolled rebases in the codebase. On purpose.

Your board splits into tabs: My PRs, Needs my review, Involved, Orgs, Notifications. Stack view draws your whole chain as a tree, one PR per stone. Review happens in the pane, diff and inline comments and approve, no browser trips. One key merges the bottom PR and re-parents the rest. Another ships the whole stack bottom-up, retargeting each base as it goes. Every destructive action gets a confirmation screen that tells you what's about to happen: which branches move, which PRs retarget, what breaks if you say yes. No "are you sure?" with zero context.

Then there's the rest: remote stack mode for teammate stacks on repos you never cloned, drift detection with one-key reconcile, intuitive 3-pane conflict resolver so you never bond with vim again, notifications inbox with live preview, context-aware help that only shows keys that do something on the current screen, syntax-highlighted diffs, file tree, hunk navigation, threaded inline replies, full-page conversation view, board sections powered by search filters, tab cycling, header jumping, grouping by repo, and dark and light themes fully overridable.

Daily driver at work. Feedback welcome, especially from anyone who's tried stacking and given up.

Hi!

Although the recent trend seems to be to announce a groundbreaking new git client and no less, with which we at syntevo can't really keep up as we're still developing exactly one, we think there's still some other interesting things around git.

One thing we recently added to SmartGit is what we call the Overlap column. It's a bit weird to explain, since it doesn't have an exact counterpart in git itself, and as far as we know no other git client shows this information either (please correct me if I'm wrong, it would be very interesting to see what others have come up with!).

In essence, we tried to make visible what git doesn't track or display on its own, namely the relationship between changes introduced by commits in your branch.

Sounds a bit abstract, but this new column shows you at a glance which commits have overlap with one or more selected commits.

An example: Suppose you have a bunch of commits. The last one introduces a few changes, but you're not sure whether these changes should be made somewhere else in your branch, or if they are undoing what you did earlier.

What I've been doing in this case was to go into the file logs to find the relevant commits, and inspect them, one file at a time. That works well, and is quite fast thanks to git being quick, but it's also a bit cumbersome, especially with many files. So instead of doing that, I sometimes resorted to combing through the log itself, which can be tedious as well. With Overlap, you just select that last commit, and the commits which have some Overlap with that selected commit are highlighted.

Having built that feature (and all the other stuff around history re-ordering, splitting, modifying which goes hand-in-hand with Overlap), we are living inside a bubble of course. So I wonder, what does r/git think about this? Do you think this is useful? Is it just another gimmick you won't use? Does AI make it irrelevant anyway since you don't read code anymore, anyhow?

Let us know what you think!

https://docs.syntevo.com/SmartGit/Latest/Manual/GUI/Overlap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p84uBgYndS4

https://www.smartgit.dev/features/clean-commits/

Hey r/git, I'm the developer of GitWand (https://gitwand.app/), an open-source Git client I built to auto-resolve merge conflicts. It's a native app (macOS/Linux/Windows, ~8MB, no Electron) that classifies every conflict hunk using 10 deterministic patterns first, so most conflicts are resolved without any AI involved. For the trickier ~5%, you can ask an AI assistant to help in one click. It's 100% local, free, MIT-licensed, no account required, and telemetry is anonymous and GDPR-compliant. It also ships a full Git client (commit graph, diffs, PRs, worktrees) and an MCP server for AI agents like Claude Code or Cursor. Curious what this community thinks of the deterministic-pattern approach vs. AI-based conflict resolution.

💡 I've just published awesome-commit-conventions (https://github.com/khasky/awesome-commit-conventions), a concise technical reference for commit message conventions.

The guide focuses on writing consistent, readable commit messages that remain useful beyond the initial code change. A well-structured commit history can support code review, debugging, changelog generation, release notes, and versioning decisions.

The reference covers:

- Commit message structure
- Conventional Commits
- Commit types and scopes
- Breaking changes
- SemVer-oriented release workflows
- Changelog-friendly Git history
- Practical examples and common edge cases

GitHub: https://github.com/khasky/awesome-commit-conventions

#Git #ConventionalCommits #SemVer #Changelog #AwesomeLists

Built a small OSS tool over the weekend: branchcontext — an MCP server that logs what an agent did/decided/flagged on a branch, so a fresh session (or a different agent) can pick up where the last one left off, instead of starting blind. Stores everything as plain JSONL committed into the repo itself — no external DB, works with git log even without the tool installed. Curious if this matches a pain anyone else here has, or if you're already solving it another way. https://github.com/tshore2004/branchcontext

Trabajo constantemente con repositorios personales, del trabajo y de clientes.

Uno de los problemas que más me molestaba era tener que cambiar entre cuentas de GitHub. Entre credenciales, autenticaciones y configuraciones de Git, terminaba perdiendo tiempo en algo que debería ser transparente.

Así que decidí crear una herramienta para resolverlo.

Se llama GAM (Git Account Manager)

¿Qué hace?

• Permite gestionar múltiples cuentas de GitHub.
• Autenticas cada cuenta una sola vez mediante OAuth.
• Cambias entre ellas con un solo comando.
• git push, git pull y git clone funcionan sin volver a iniciar sesión.
• Puedes asignar alias como 'work', 'personal' o 'cliente'.

Ejemplo:

gam add
gam use work
git push

Repositorio:
https://github.com/miguelbalvin-dev/gam

Instalación:

npm install -g @gamcli/gam

Es la primera versión pública, así que me gustaría recibir feedback de otros desarrolladores.

¿Qué funcionalidades creen que harían falta? ¿Cómo manejan ustedes múltiples cuentas de GitHub?

So basically I'm trying to copy a gitlab repository that isn't mine (but I gave guest access) to my github desktop.

When I put it there and input my username with password (I've even tried many different PAT's) it gives me this error message.

If it helps anyone the repository is a Hoi4 mod.