Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 269 posts

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#31

Post by Certhas »

TylerE wrote: post #24
ocharles wrote: post #22

Nice to see this posted here. I switched over to it about 2-3 weeks ago, and I haven't looked back. It took a lot of mental rewiring, but I really enjoy the workflow `jj` provides. There's no longer a time to think about what's being committed, because all file changes automatically amend the working copy commit. Of course, sometimes you don't want this, so you have things like the ability to split a commit into two,…

What happens if you accidentally save a file with some sort of secret that gets sucked in?

Isn't the idea that you continue editing the working copy commit until you actually commit it?

Also from the documentation:

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/git-comparis...

"As a Git power-user, you may think that you need the power of the index to commit only part of the working copy. However, Jujutsu provides commands for more directly achieving most use cases you're used to using Git's index for. For example, to create a commit from part of the changes in the working copy, you might be used to using git add -p; git commit. With Jujutsu, you'd instead use jj split to split the working-copy commit into two commits. To add more changes into the parent commit, which you might normally use git add -p; git commit --amend for, you can instead use jj squash -i to choose which changes to move into the parent commit."

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#32

Post by Certhas »

awestroke wrote: post #28

"working copy is automatically committed" seems like a good idea at first glance, but there are many situations where this is not a good idea: - when new artefact files are added and you have not yet added them to .gitignore, they'll be automatically committed - when you have added ignored files in one branch and switch to another branch, the files will still be in your working copy but not listed in your .gitignore…

I don't see how these things are an issue in jjs design, nor do I see how staging some files is easier than splitting a commit after the fact...

Check out the documentation, many of the cases you are concerned about are explicitly mentioned:

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/git-comparis...

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#34

Post by apeescape »

dagurp wrote: post #11
zelphirkalt wrote: post #5

I would say "What a weird name for a VCS. Whether that will work ...", but then I have to remind myself of the dictionary meaning of "git". So who knows. Maybe we will be adopting all kinds of martial arts terminology. For example: "I use Karate to manage my code. I divide everything using chops. When a kata is done, ..."

It's a horrible name to pronounce for many non-English speakers.

Did you know that the English way to pronounce "jujutsu" isn't how the Japanese pronounce it? The Japanese way to pronounce it could actually be a lot easier for many non-English speakers (I'd anyway argue it's a common enough word that people are familiar enough with it to pronounce it in a way that's comfortable to them).

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#36

Post by TylerE »

Certhas wrote: post #31
TylerE wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you accidentally save a file with some sort of secret that gets sucked in?

Isn't the idea that you continue editing the working copy commit until you actually commit it? Also from the documentation: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/git-comparis... "As a Git power-user, you may think that you need the power of the index to commit only part of the working copy. However, Jujutsu provides commands for more directly achieving most use cases you're used to using Git's index for. Fo…

Ugh, I was baited by myself here. I’m he scripts I use at the day git (which are the only way I tolerate hit, honestly. It does this, and also recursively merges from parent branches in commit.

We’re on an old school feature branch/master is production topology though.

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#37

Post by Ygg2 »

Beldin wrote: post #23
geenat wrote: post #9

Explain how does it handle large binary files? (the UX around this is the shortcoming of all current DVCS..)

Now I'm curious: how would you want a DVCS to handle large binaries?

Partial checkout/Shallow first checkout.

JJ doesn't seem to do that though, right?

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#38

Post by KolmogorovComp »

Certhas wrote: post #31
TylerE wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you accidentally save a file with some sort of secret that gets sucked in?

Isn't the idea that you continue editing the working copy commit until you actually commit it? Also from the documentation: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/git-comparis... "As a Git power-user, you may think that you need the power of the index to commit only part of the working copy. However, Jujutsu provides commands for more directly achieving most use cases you're used to using Git's index for. Fo…

Sometimes you have changes that are permanent to your repo (ie local workflow), that you always want to keep locally, but never push to the remote.

In git you would always leave the changes unstage, does that mean with jj you would always have to remove them before pushing? I haven’t found an answer on the linked page.

Side note: I really wish git had a way to mark commit has ‘no-push’ so they never leave your local copy, as an upgrade of the unstaged workflow.

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#39

Post by UzEE »

vesinisa wrote: post #17

This looks promising. One question I had after reading about its git compatibility is that they seem mostly focused on the use case where a Jujutsu user accesses a git repository (hosted by e.g. GitHub) with jj. But does it support the converse way of working, i.e. accessing a native Jujutsu repository with git? I ask this because most developers are already quite familiar with the git CLI so in production use one wo…

I would assume there would always be the expectation that you either use Jujitsu as a frontend to a git repo, or have a complete Jujitsu based remotes.

If you're going to work on and contribute to a project that is already using Jujitsu, it is reasonable to expect that you'd adapt your workflow to the project itself and not the other way around.

Re: Jujutsu: A Git-compatible DVCS that is both simple and powerful

#40

Post by jstanley »

KolmogorovComp wrote: post #38
Certhas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the idea that you continue editing the working copy commit until you actually commit it? Also from the documentation: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/git-comparis... "As a Git power-user, you may think that you need the power of the index to commit only part of the working copy. However, Jujutsu provides commands for more directly achieving most use cases you're used to using Git's index for. Fo…

Sometimes you have changes that are permanent to your repo (ie local workflow), that you always want to keep locally, but never push to the remote. In git you would always leave the changes unstage, does that mean with jj you would always have to remove them before pushing? I haven’t found an answer on the linked page. Side note: I really wish git had a way to mark commit has ‘no-push’ so they never leave your local…

> In git you would always leave the changes unstaged

I do this too, but I quite frequently forget that I've done it and "git commit -am" and end up pushing my private changes anyway.

Post reply on HN