am I in some alternate timeline where ISVs are able to make a profit selling version control systems?
New age of vendor lock-in?
The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
151–160 of 283 posts
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#152I like the idea of jujutsu, but I must not operate at a scale where its "killer features" would truly shine. Git hardly ever gets in my way, I have never had to do complex octopus merges or anything like that. It's usually: feature branch, implement, merge, and occasionally fix a merge conflict. JJ seems like it's more for people that like to have tons of active branches that they are constantly switching between whe…
I was a skeptic until a few months ago. It’s my daily driver now. I’ve got sizable amount of people committing to the same repo, many are not skilled with git. So I deal with weird crazy “how did you ever get the repo into this state” issues not infrequently. JJ is just so low friction. The seamless and painless shuffling of commits, working up and down the commit chain without explicit rebasing, unchanging change-id…
Same experience. At first I really didn’t get it and now I could never go back. The ease of rebasing, renaming, reordering, splitting, etc. Has drastically changed the way I work. My PRs are undoubtably much better now, and I am never afraid of messing up thanks to jj undo and the op log in general
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#153I like the idea of jujutsu, but I must not operate at a scale where its "killer features" would truly shine. Git hardly ever gets in my way, I have never had to do complex octopus merges or anything like that. It's usually: feature branch, implement, merge, and occasionally fix a merge conflict. JJ seems like it's more for people that like to have tons of active branches that they are constantly switching between whe…
if you make commits, then you are at the scale where its killer features would shine. In other words, even the most basic git usage is made easier with jj.
If you care to learn more, there's tons of posts on hn and the broader web, so I won't bother sharing any links. I will say, though, that you should use it with jjui, which is a tremendous TUI for jj - you don't even really need to learn any of the actual jj syntax because it just handles it all for you.
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#154I like the idea of jujutsu, but I must not operate at a scale where its "killer features" would truly shine. Git hardly ever gets in my way, I have never had to do complex octopus merges or anything like that. It's usually: feature branch, implement, merge, and occasionally fix a merge conflict. JJ seems like it's more for people that like to have tons of active branches that they are constantly switching between whe…
jjui is the killer feature for me
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#155Someone will have to explain the value proposition to me... We have git. jujutsu works with git. git can do everything jujutsu can do (otherwise, jujutsu couldn't work with git). Thus, jujutsu is a UX / new steering wheel. ERSC is trying to be a GitHub competitor with what surplus value? Don't get me wrong, GitHub has a slew of its own problems, but I have not seen any commentary on how ERSC addresses any of the down…
> git can do everything jujutsu can do (otherwise, jujutsu couldn't work with git).
assembly can do everything [insert high level language] can do. why not just write everything in that?
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#156I tried jujutsu for a while and it’s nice if you’re the kind of person who lives in the commits. But it became a bit of a pain to manually move the branch name around all the time, and I spend a lot more time moving forward on a few branches than I do trying to figure out histories so I went back to git.
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#157I like the idea of jujutsu, but I must not operate at a scale where its "killer features" would truly shine. Git hardly ever gets in my way, I have never had to do complex octopus merges or anything like that. It's usually: feature branch, implement, merge, and occasionally fix a merge conflict. JJ seems like it's more for people that like to have tons of active branches that they are constantly switching between whe…
I disagree.
Similar to you, 95% of the time I do the simple use case that I've memorized. The problem is that even after a decade of using Git, when I get into those 5% where something goes wrong, I have no idea how to actually solve it. None of it makes any sense in my head, and I have to search for a bunch of magical commands to run, or nuke things to get back to a good state.
With JJ, it just makes sense. It's intuitive and clear. I have been able to recover without any help. Just the undo alone is basically a life saver. Rebasing and merge conflict resolution is so much simpler.
Yes I probably won't use it to its full potential, but still, the little I do use makes 10x more sense than Git ever did.
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
A term coined within Google that describes the best part (to me at least) of jj: delayed conflict resolution. You worked on multiple things, you sync with the upstream, then boom now you have conflicts in one or more of your local branches. Instead of immediately presenting you a conflict resolution view (usually 3 pane vimdiff) and you'll have to resolve at the sync time, the commits are simply marked as "have confl…
> And for a chain of commits that all have conflicts, chances are fixing the first conflict automatically resolves all other conflicts in the chain, thanks to the auto-rebasing feature. What happens if one is unlucky and the conflicts are not automatically resolved from changes to the first commit? Does that potentially imply more work overall than if one was using a VCS that forced conflict resolution earlier, like…
It’s fundamentally no different than doing the same resolution in git.
The main advantages are that you can do the changes piecemeal, in any order, at any time, and by jumping around in the commit history however you need or want to.
Sometimes the best way to solve a conflict is by changing something before the conflict, or by moving pieces from one commit to another. Git doesn’t allow this, you can only do: fully fix commit 1, fully fix commit 2, fully fix commit 3, and so on.
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#159I tried jujutsu for a while and it’s nice if you’re the kind of person who lives in the commits. But it became a bit of a pain to manually move the branch name around all the time, and I spend a lot more time moving forward on a few branches than I do trying to figure out histories so I went back to git.
FWIW, most of the time I don’t even bother naming my branches. ‘jj git push -C` even handles naming for me when I want to make a PR, but that’s mostly the only time I bother.
When I do need to advance a branch name, `jj bookmark advance` is easy enough. And it works great with the model that `jj git push` pushes all out-of-sync branches. In this model, advancing a bookmark is the reliable signal that I’m ready to share work, not simply “having authored a commit”.
Re: The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely love jj (just check my HN comment history). One thing I'd love to see in jj though that git does better is copy tracking. If somebody renames a file upstream, and you go to rebase your commit that touches that file onto main, jj doesn't handle this very well compared to git. Do you have any idea if this is coming to jj soon?
Do you happen to have or know of any good open source projects on any public platform like GitHub, gitlab or Codeberg, that uses Jujutsu/jj?
Checkout Gisia https://github.com/gisiahq/gisia