So: Squash everything together then pick each component out by squash -i to an empty commit.

Seems straightforward, wouldn’t call it special

I think jj will never gain momentum because people only have a git mental model at this point, so won't be able to effectively reason about jj.

▲

incognito124 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I spoke about this before, but jj has the Blub Paradox problem, from the pg's essay Beating the Averages (https://paulgraham.com/avg.html).

Yes, you can do most commit manipulations with git just like with jj. But, users of jj know they're "looking down the power continuum" (to reuse pg's terminology) when they look at git, whereas git users cannot fathom what's exactly the deal with jj. Unfortunately, the only way to get it is to spend a week with it, with an open mind. It's close to impossible to describe it except "it's really neat" and "wow it removes all git's friction I didn't know existed".

And, apparently, there's a pattern of having to try at least two times before it becomes intuitive!

▲

skydhash an hour ago | parent [-]

> Unfortunately, the only way to get it is to spend a week with it, with an open mind

We do get it. But have you ever thought that git inflexible nature and full control is what some people people like?

Having three different state for your work (working tree, staging, and committed) is nice for reviewing code. Picking lines and chunk give me an additional mental state to think about the design of the code.

And once upon a time, I preferred history log like the one in the article. But this days (mostly inspired by mailing list development style) I wants the commit in my main log to be either features or bug fixes. Everything else is “wip”, which I will squash. It makes it easier when rewriting history, cherry picking, or just browsing the log.

▲

jolux an hour ago | parent [-]

There’s nothing stopping you from using separate changes to emulate the staging area if you want.

▲

entrope 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That is, in essence, the "squash workflow": https://steveklabnik.github.io/jujutsu-tutorial/real-world-w...

The big differences are that the jj approach gives you a commit message for the staging change, and lets you jump to some other commit without extra steps.

▲

skydhash 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I can, but I don’t need to.

jj has nothing I need, so it would be changes for the sake of changes. I’m not saying it’s bad, but people do need to realize that their struggles are there, not the whole world.

	▲	jolux 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Totally fair :) personally I used to be a git wizard and I am relieved at how much about it I’ve been able to forget since learning jj, but I understand not everyone has the same experience.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]