I didn't cover it for various reasons, but I think it's good to teach now that I've had more time to consider this sort of thing, so the next iteration will likely start by beginning with jj commit.

▲

saghm 7 hours ago | parent [-]

In a pure `jj` model, commit might not even be necessary as it's own subcommand (since you could easily define an alias for `desc` followed by `new`). We're still living in a world where most people who would consider adopting `jj` are git users currently, so I wonder if starting with `commit` and then following it up with an explanation of "here's how you can change the commit message without needing to make a new commit" and "here's how you can make a new commit without changing the name of the current one" would end up fitting people's expectations better.

▲

steveklabnik 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I do think that the latter is correct now.

I tend to learn "bottom-up", so I like the new + describe as a way of learning, but people want to jump in and get going with tools, so commit fits that expectation better.

	▲	saghm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm the same way. I've learned over the years that this ends up being somewhat uncommon though, and one of the harder but more rewarding parts of helping people learn is figuring out where they're coming from and meeting them there. (I'm positive this is something you've been well aware of for a while though, probably longer than me!)