Some will say that it's a "red flag", others will say that those saying it's a red flag lack the experience of working on diverse set of projects with various needs and requirements.

Take Linux: they've got a "super-long-term-support" branch, a "long-term-support" branch, a "stable" branch, and the next "stable" branch. Stable is supported until the release of the next "stable" & 3 months after that, with (usually) 2-6 months between stable releases. "long-term-support" branches are supported for about 5 years, "super-long-term-support" for a few years after that. So there can be up to 4 released branches actively supported at any given time, ignoring any feature branches.

Not all software is developed by one software organization.

Programs to manage “stacks of patches” go back decades. That might be hundreds that have accumulated over years which are all rebased on the upstream repository. The upstream repository might be someone you barely know, or someone you haven’t managed to get a response from. But you have your changes in your fork and you need to maintain it yourself until upstream accepts it (if they ever call back).

I’m pretty sure that the Git For Windows project is managed as patches on top of Git. And I’ve seen the maintainer post patches to the Git mailing list saying something like, okay we’ve been using this for months now and I think it’s time that it is incorporated in Git.[1]

I’ve seen patches posted to the Git mailing list where they talk about how this new thing (like a command) was originally developed by someone on GitHub (say) but now someone on GitLab (say) took it over and wants to upstream it. Maybe years after it was started.

Almost all changes to the Git project need to incubate for a week in an integration branch called `next` before it is merged to `master`.[1] Beyond slow testing for Git project itself, this means that downstream projects can use `next` in their automated testing to catch regressions before they hit `master`.

† 1: Which is kind of a like a “megamerge”

It depends. We have pretty good review culture (usually same day rarely more than 24H), but some changes may need multiple rounds of review or might be have flaky tests that uncovers after a few hours. Also some work is experimental and not ready for pushing out for review. Sometimes I create a very large number of commits as part of a migration DND I can't get them all reviewed in parallel. It can be a lot of things. Maybe it happens more with monorepos.

I'd really like to hear your argument about when single large PR is better than stacked PRs from both PR author and reviewers' perspectives

Why would you like git and not jj is beyond me, this must be something like two electric charges being the same and repelling themselves. It’s the same underlying data structure with a bit different axioms (conflicts allowed to be committed vs not; working tree is a commit vs isn’t).

Turns out these two differences combined with tracking change identity over multiple snapshots (git shas) allow for ergonomic workflows which were possible in git, just very cumbersome. The workflows that git makes easy jj also keeps easy. You can stop yelling at clouds and sleep soundly knowing that there is a tool to reach for when you need it and you’ll know when you need it.

> you don't have a culture where

Yeah, and? Not everyone is in control of the culture of the organization they work in. I suspect most people are not. Is everyone on HN CEOs and CTOs?

I think the unspoken part is that the mess of commits is being produced by agents not people.

That’s why it’s always the same confusing hype when it’s discussed, because it’s AI/LLM hype effectively

Even if you're working on one single thread of development, jj is easier and more flexible than git though. That it works better for super complicated workflows is just a bonus.

jj reduces mental overhead by mapping far more cleanly and intuitively to the way people tend to work.

This is a little weird at first when you’ve been used to a decade and a half of contorting your mental model to fit git. But it genuinely is one of those tools that’s both easier and more powerful. The entire reason people are looking at these new workflows is because jj makes things so much easier and more straightforward that we can explore new workflows that remove or reduce the complexity of things that just weren’t even remotely plausible in git.

A huge one for me: successive PRs that roll out some thing to dev/staging/prod. You can do the work all at once, split it into three commits that progressively roll out, and make a PR for each. This doesn’t sound impressive until you have to fix something in the dev PR. In git, this would be a massive pain in the ass. In jj, it’s basically a no-op. You fix dev, and everything downstream is updated to include the fix automatically. It’s nearly zero effort.

Another is when you are working on a feature and in doing so need to add a capability to somewhere else and fix two bugs in other places. You could just do all of this in one PR, but now the whole thing has to b reviewed as a larger package. With jj, it’s trivial to pull out the three separate changes into three branches, continue your work on a merge of those three branches, and open PRs for each separate change. When two of them merge cleanly and another needs further changes, you just do it and there’s zero friction from the tool. Meanwhile just the thought of this in git gives me anxiety. It reduces my mental overhead, my effort, and gives overburdened coworkers bite-sized PRs that can be reviewed in seconds instead of a bigger one that needs time set aside. And I don’t ever end up in a situation where I need to stop working on the thing I am trying to do because my team hasn’t had the bandwidth to review and merge my PRs. I’ve been dozens of commits and several stacked branches ahead of what’s been merged and it doesn’t even slightly matter.

"Merge 2 branches" is already far from being a primitive. A git repository is just a graph of snapshots of some files and directories that can be manipulated in various ways, and git itself is a bunch of tools to manipulate that graph, sometimes directly (plumbing) and sometimes in an opinionated way (porcelain). Merging is nothing but creating a node (commit) that has more than one parent (not necessarily two) combined with a pluggable tool that helps you reconcile the contents of these parents (which does not actually have to be used at all as the result does not have to be related to any of the parents).

(you may know that already, but maybe someone who reads this will find this helpful for forming a good mental model, as so many people lack one despite of working with git daily)

It's easy to forget that what's "simple" is a function of what tools we have. And our familiarity with them.