Honestly, until JJ is 1.0, I wouldn't recommend it for beginners. There's significant changes happening to the interface still.

▲

maleldil 2 days ago | parent [-]

I've been using it in relatively the same way for a while now. The only meaningful changes were native support for `tug` and `absorb`, neither of which significantly changed my workflow.

▲

dzaima 2 days ago | parent [-]

eh, there have been a good amount of breaking changes. `-d`/`--destination` → `-o`/`--onto` (the former isn't yet deprecated though); deprecated `--allow-new` on push (or, forcibly making it the default for `--bookmark`); deprecated `jj bookmark track foo@bar` (and `jj bookmark track foo` having a really-weird system (I personally just call it broken, even though the behavior is intentional) of sometimes tracking the bookmark on all remotes; really I'd call jj's entire system of bookmark tracking/pulling/pushing quite incomplete outside of the trivial cases); various changed revset functions over time that break configs; and a really-annoying thing of `jj git fetch` sometimes abandoning ascendants of `@` leaving you in a confusing state (if not one with conflicts), with the solution being a future `jj git sync`.

It's certainly very usable despite all that, and the changes are simple enough to adapt to, but it's a pretty new thing.

	▲	bombcar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think for a real neophyte jj will be fine especially when used with the git backend. Someone who "knows enough to be dangerous" may be better served by sticking with the git happy-path. Of course, if working with others you should use what they do until you're confident that you can switch without impacting them.