The creator of Jujutsu has joined ERSC

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 8:21 AM UTC

stouset wrote: post #150

KajMagnus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a trivial counter example Git does not currently have a way to store conflicts inside commits[1], which is one of our major features. Yes, I like how jj does it! Did a big `git rebase -i` yesterday and I felt stressed up, almost a bit angry, when there were some conflicts and I wasn't sure if I'd resolve all of them before it was time to leave, and work more later from a different laptop. But with jj, no stress:…

And you can deal with them in any order, bit by bit, or by adjusting things in earlier commits. I no longer fear rebase conflicts.

Post by 1718627440 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 8:28 AM UTC

dcre wrote: post #145

umvi wrote: post #142

I 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…

A few advantages for me, even for the same 5 commands I use over and over: - undo - shuffling commits around with squash, split, and rebase is much better than git’s interactive rebase - make commits without having to come up with a branch name (I might make three versions of the same change in parallel to see how they compare) I see git is working on adding some of this under the history command. The revset language…

    - select oldest commit to modify
    - move the commits around with a mouse or the cursor
    - close the editor to apply

Post by mb2100 » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:02 AM UTC

y1n0 wrote: post #143

umvi wrote: post #142

I 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…

Post by pjmlp » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 9:28 AM UTC

saghm wrote: post #84

drsouth wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this have any chance if Jujutsu/jj doesn't get more traction? The effort to learn a new VCS is less than for a programming language, but many developers have not learned git in depth, and Mercurial and others have not gained a lot of traction.

I'd argue that the reason a lot of developers have not learned git in depth is because it's actually kind of terrible from a UX standpoint (lots of inconsistent naming of things and somewhat leaky abstractions), and that Mercurial faced an uphill battle in large part because it lacked compatibility with what people were already using. I haven't used Mercurial, but from what I've heard quite a lot of how jj does thing…

Post by ashkankiani » Wed, Sep 02, 2026, 10:36 AM UTC