> Trying out jj is super low-risk--since it uses git as a backend, you can test it out and bail back to git without any drawbacks other than a detached head state.

Btw, the risk of trying out other modern version control systems is nearly as low: most of them are compatible with git and you can convert back and forth. That definitely includes mercurial etc.

▲

locknitpicker 2 days ago | parent [-]

> That definitely includes mercurial etc.

People tried mercurial. They went back to git.

▲

Shish2k 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I tried Sapling (Facebook's fork of mercurial with more polished git-compatibility layers) and never looked back for any of my own projects.

I recently started a new job where the vanilla git CLI is the only git frontend installed on company servers, and the regressions in user-experience are painful :(

▲

eru 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Some did, sure. I made a more limited claim: you can convert back and forth between mercurial and git.

	▲	locknitpicker a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Some did, sure. Not some. I mean, even the few source code repository services that supported mercurial started dropping it. See Bitbucket's announcement: https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/sunsetting-mercuria... > According to a Stack Overflow Developer Survey, almost 90% of developers use Git, while Mercurial is the least popular version control system with only about 3% developer adoption. In fact, Mercurial usage on Bitbucket is steadily declining, and the percentage of new Bitbucket users choosing Mercurial has fallen to less than 1%.