I tried jj for a few months. It was fun to learn a new thing, but I haven't had a single case of "wow, this would have been a pain with git". Then I went back to git (it's been 6 months now) and I haven't had a single case of "this is so painful, I wish something better existed".

So it felt like the XKCD on "standards": I now have one versioning system, if I learn jj I will have two. What for?

Don't get me wrong: it's nice that jj exists and some people seem to love it. But I don't see a need for myself. Just like people seem to love Meson, but the consequence for me is that instead of dealing with CMake and Autotools, I now have to deal with CMake, Autotools and Meson.

EDIT: no need to downvote me: I tried jj and it is nice. I am just saying that from my point of view, it is not worth switching for me. I am not saying that you should not switch, though you probably should not try to force me to switch, that's all.

▲

BeetleB 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For me, it was kind of the same. I used jj. Really liked it, but did not find it all that much better than git.

Then, for various reasons, I switched back to git.

By day 2, I was missing jj.

Stuff like "jj undo" really is nice.

	▲	newsoftheday 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

naasking 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Then I went back to git (it's been 6 months now) and I haven't had a single case of "this is so painful, I wish something better existed".

The core issues are: how long did it take you to get there, how many lucky decisions did you have to make to not run into git footguns, and how many other people accidentally made different choices and so have very different experiences from you?

	▲	palata 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What you're saying is that other people may find jj easier for them, right? I am fine with that. I am just saying that the "you should use jj, you will finally stop shooting yourself in the foot regularly" doesn't work so well for me, because I don't remember shooting myself in the foot with git.