... unless you actually want to edit a change!

throawayonthe 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

well, you can do jj new <revision>, make your edit, and then do jj squash which will add the changes to the prev revision

i do this for example when i want to see a specific edit highlighted in my editor, it's a nice workflow i think

▲

Aeolun 11 hours ago | parent [-]

This is exactly how someone explained Git to me 12 years ago or so, and I’ve finally wrapped my head around it. Not changing now.

▲

mh- 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If I'm understanding the thread correctly, I have a git alias to `git commit --amend --no-edit`, for exactly this workflow. When I'm hacking on something locally and want to just keep amending a commit. I only ever do this if it's HEAD though.

	▲	steveklabnik 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, one way to think about jj in a sort of low-level way is that every jj command does the equivalent of that, every time. (You can also set up watchman and have that happen on every file change...)

▲

hacker161 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

BeetleB 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I go back and forth between the two approaches, but because of the whole "accidentally made some temporary changes and now it's a pain to separate/undo them because not all changes were temporary", I also usually do a jj new and then jj squash.

▲

arccy 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

still use new, and then squash your changes in. that way you can actually see what changes you made

▲

incognito124 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

then you `new` & `squash` :)