| You don’t need jj for this anymore. The whole premise of optimizing human workflows around source control is becoming obsolete. When LLMs are driving development, source control stops being an active cognitive concern and becomes a passive implementation detail. The unit of work is no longer “branches” or “commits,” it’s intent. You describe what you want, the model generates, refactors, and reconciles changes across parallel streams automatically. Parallel workstreams used to require careful coordination: rebasing, merging, conflict resolution, mental bookkeeping of state. That overhead existed because humans were the bottleneck. Once an LLM is managing the codebase, it can reason over the entire state space continuously and resolve those conflicts as part of generation, not as a separate step. In that world, tools like jj are optimizing a layer that’s already being abstracted away. It’s similar to how no one optimizes around assembly anymore. It still exists, it still matters at a lower level, but it’s no longer where productivity is gained. |
| |
| ▲ | qsera 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The unit of work is no longer “branches” or “commits,” It better be, now and going forward for people who use LLMs..because they will need it when LLM messes up and have to figure out, manually, how to resolve. You ll need all the help (not to mention luck) you need then.. | |
| ▲ | skydhash 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of words to say "LLMs are good for this, trust me bro!" You're bashing the old way, but you do not provide any concrete evidence for any of your points. > The unit of work is no longer “branches” or “commits,” it’s intent. Insert <astronaut meme "always has been">. Branching is always about "I want to try to implement this thing, but I also want to quickly go back to the main task/canonical version". Committing is about I want to store this version in time with a description of the changes I made since the last commit. So both are an expression and a record of intent. > Parallel workstreams used to require careful coordination: rebasing, merging, conflict resolution, mental bookkeeping of state. Your choice of words is making me believe that you have a poor understanding of version control and only see it as storage of code. Commits are notes that annotates changes, when you want to share your work, you share the changes since the last version everyone knows about alongside the notes that (should) explain those changes. But just like you take time to organize and edit your working notes for a final piece, rebasing is how you edit commits to have a cleaner history. Merging is when you want to keep the history of two branches. Conflict resolution is a nice signal that the intent of a section of code may differ (eg. one wants blue, the other wants red). Having no conflict is not a guarantee that the code works (one reduces the size of the container, while the other increase the flow of the pipe, both wanted to speed up filling the container). So you have to inspect the code and run test afterwards. Discard the above if you just don't care about the code that you're writing. | | |
| ▲ | uhhhd 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think we’re talking past each other. My point isn’t that jj is bad. It’s that it’s solving problems that are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Tools like git and jj exist to help humans manage state: branches, commits, rebases, conflicts, history curation. That whole model assumes a human is directly manipulating and reasoning about the codebase. With LLMs in the loop, that assumption breaks. I don’t need to think in terms of branches or commits. I describe intent, and the model handles the mechanics of editing, reconciling, and producing a coherent result. Source control becomes an implementation detail of the toolchain, not something I actively operate. jj is an improvement over git for humans, but that’s exactly why it feels like a local maximum. It refines a workflow that is already being abstracted away. I’m not saying version control disappears. I’m saying it moves down a layer, the same way memory management or instruction scheduling did. When that happens, optimizing the human interface to it matters a lot less. | | |
| ▲ | skydhash 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Tools like git and jj exist to help humans manage state: branches, commits, rebases, conflicts, history curation. That whole model assumes a human is directly manipulating and reasoning about the codebase. Think about the following first. You got a problem in the real world and if you can subdivide it into smaller problems, you will find that some are simple enough that a computer can take care of it and never be bored while doing it. And due to the last decades a lot of them have ready-made solutions. But you have to coordinate those solutions and write a program. And for these you need to write instructions into a text files. But the real world is not static and you can't figure out the solution in one go, so you have to do iterative works on it. And unlike real world, the only cost of modifications is time. But you still want backups and the ability to restore version. So here come version control for the code of the software. So you start thinking about all the possible workflow you could do with checkpoints you can return to in a few minutes, and it will look very close to something like git (or cvs). The one thing is that the computer is very removed from the problem that is driving all the changes and instead is at the other side. So it can magically correct issues and instead you have to step in. > With LLMs in the loop, that assumption breaks. I don’t need to think in terms of branches or commits. I describe intent, and the model handles the mechanics of editing, reconciling, and producing a coherent result. That would be great if that was possible now, but that looks like a synopsis for some SF novel. I can use git or jj today, but your version is lacking the several steps that would be making this a daily occurrence. > memory management or instruction scheduling You may think that they did, but that's until you have to deal with a memory leak or concurrent tasks. What we want version control for is the capability to snapshot state and restore to a known state and to share changes (instead of whole folder) when collaborating. How it's done does not really matter but git's conceptual model is very close to be ideal (at least for text files and line based statements). And its UX is versatile enough to be adaptable for all sort of workflow. |
|
| |
| ▲ | surajrmal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are a lot of assumptions baked into your assessment. We are not at the point where manual workflows are obsolete. Maybe it is for folks who work on web apps, but it's certainly not the case for many others. AI Agents are constantly making mistakes and need oversight. Things have gotten dramatically better, but not enough for me to trust it to not create a terrible mess. |
|
