31–40 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switch to branch for thing 1, work on it, commit, switch to branch for thing 2, work on it, commit, ...
Do you stash or create a commit with potentially partial work? What do you name that commit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are three answers to this. 1. If it works for you, no need to stop I remember plenty of people who used SVN saying why did they need to use git. In fact, I remember companies complaining about distributed version control generally, saying they preferred centralized version control. If it works for you, you can keep using it. No one will stop you, but you may find that just as SVN users have largely shrunk down,…
I get what you are saying about the nicer workflows for those cases. However, why would the contributors to jj not just try to make git better by addressing these weaknesses? I’m not being glib, just that it puzzzles me when a new oss comes out that does the same thing as another tool but a a bit different. I would have though that there is a way to have a git plug-in or even a way to contribute to git to enhance the…
I'm still unsure of why I'd want to move to jj from git. My ideal git workflow is pretty simple: 1. `git switch -C new-branch` 2. Make changes, time passes 3. `git add .` 4. `git commit -m "Description of changes made"` 5. `git fetch && git rebase origin/main` 6. `git push` 7. Make pr to main If main is out of date I rebase again to update. This to me feels pretty light weight and is not a hinderence in any way on my…
There are three answers to this. 1. If it works for you, no need to stop I remember plenty of people who used SVN saying why did they need to use git. In fact, I remember companies complaining about distributed version control generally, saying they preferred centralized version control. If it works for you, you can keep using it. No one will stop you, but you may find that just as SVN users have largely shrunk down,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One advantage is that jujutsu tracks merge conflicts so you don't end up in a situation where you'll have to resolve the same conflict more than once, which may sometimes happen with git.
So it is git with rerere.enabled=1?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switch to branch for thing 1, work on it, commit, switch to branch for thing 2, work on it, commit, ...
Do you stash or create a commit with potentially partial work? What do you name that commit?
Then checkout the new branch and do my work.
When I come back, `git reset --soft HEAD^`, and continue
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, even if it was say 15% better than git (and I doubt it is), the overhead of moving a whole industry across VCs is billions of dollars of loss. Every single engineer has to start over in their mastery experience by learning all the new quirks and issues, and all the tools, libraries, pipelines need to be rewritten. IMO better to support the dominant tooling than invest in fracturing one of the few areas wher…
The upside with jujutsu though is that it's completely compatible with Git and you can work on the same repository with Jujutsu while your coworkers use Git. This allows the people who want the 15% gain to have it, while not forcing anyone to do a costly migration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you stash or create a commit with potentially partial work? What do you name that commit?
Whatever I want because —amend is a thing?
Theres no overhead at all in thinking these, you can never lose work by mistake, you can never mess it up. It just works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are three answers to this. 1. If it works for you, no need to stop I remember plenty of people who used SVN saying why did they need to use git. In fact, I remember companies complaining about distributed version control generally, saying they preferred centralized version control. If it works for you, you can keep using it. No one will stop you, but you may find that just as SVN users have largely shrunk down,…
I get what you are saying about the nicer workflows for those cases. However, why would the contributors to jj not just try to make git better by addressing these weaknesses? I’m not being glib, just that it puzzzles me when a new oss comes out that does the same thing as another tool but a a bit different. I would have though that there is a way to have a git plug-in or even a way to contribute to git to enhance the…