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

Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

ikesau.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 193 posts

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#51

Post by ruszki »

incognito124 wrote: post #15
nomel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

The problem with this mindset, that there is zero reason to move away from Git. I can do effortlessly everything with it. There is no incentive. I never said "it would be so good that I would be able to X"... and I didn't find a solution for it quickly. As under this post is obvious as much as under other previous posts, you can do the same things effortlessly with Git. The effort is not that I need to use 2 commands less, but to separate the code (in this specific case), which takes about a 100-1000x more time than typing those 2 extra commands, or really the need to think what kind of commands need to be used in any VCS.

The same problem with vi for example. Which I learned, deeply and for a long time. Maybe I will be break even in a decade or two. And for example, I can code faster than anybody who I know and use vi all the time (or some vi keyset in Emacs or something), not because I type faster, but because I don't need to rewrite my code that many times than them.

The same with jj. I'm happy that it clicks better than Git for some. But I know Git from inside and out. Git was never the bottleneck for me. And really any VCS in the past. If I learn jj, then I don't expect that the effort pays off in a decade or less in the best case. My work's result would be the exact same thing, just with different commands, commands which takes almost no time compared to my other tasks.

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#53

Post by sswatson »

nchmy wrote: post #50
singiamtel wrote: post #40

The only thing that stops me from switching to jujutsu is that lazygit already paves through all these paper cuts pretty well, and I'd miss their custom patches feature. I see there's a similar project for JJ, but it doesn't seem nearly as polished https://github.com/Cretezy/lazyjj

Jjui is the best tui for jj

What does jjui have on lazyjj? Sincere question; I tried it, and I want to get it, and so far I don’t.

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#54

Post by throawayonthe »

y1n0 wrote: post #2

I don't get why people like jujutsu. I tried it for a while but I work with a quite a few people in the same repo and I need easy named branches that keep up with commits. For all the many problems in git, branches are dead easy. That was the big innovation over svn at the time. Last time I tried jj, branches were an extremely laborious process to keep up to date. I don't see how people that aren't working alone can…

tbh i never actually learned git, but peope working on the same repos with git seem to be ahme ones struggling with named branches... i just do jj rebase and it just works idk

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#55

Post by nextaccountic »

> Latter commits overwrite work that was done in earlier commits and the story breaks.

> Some people prefer this, as it helps git bisect work better. Debuggability versus reviewer convenience is the tradeoff, I guess.

Ideally we would have a VCS that made ergonomic to store both history-as-it-happened for some purposes, and the cleaned up, squashed and rebased history for other purposes, ensuring they match

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#57

Post by tiltowait »

nine_k wrote: post #32
jolux wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you mean named branches (bookmarks in jj)? Because anonymous branches in jj are trivial: you just `jj new ` and you have a new branch. Bookmarks aren’t that bad either IMO, especially with the recent addition of `jj bookmark advance`. Curious if you can say more about the particular difficulties you found keeping them up to date?

Imagine that you use jj, while everyone else who works on the repo along with you uses regular git. Is it easy?

I do this all the time at my job, without issue. I think it's honestly easier than using plain git.

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#59

Post by rmwaite »

y1n0 wrote: post #2

I don't get why people like jujutsu. I tried it for a while but I work with a quite a few people in the same repo and I need easy named branches that keep up with commits. For all the many problems in git, branches are dead easy. That was the big innovation over svn at the time. Last time I tried jj, branches were an extremely laborious process to keep up to date. I don't see how people that aren't working alone can…

I remember being the big innovation over svn being merging. There were others things, obviously, but the distributed model + easy merges is what I remember.

Re: Defeating Git Rigour Fatigue with Jujutsu

#60

Post by ninkendo »

jadar wrote: post #58

I tend to just commit whenever I see fit, then at the end I do a `git reset —soft` and write the history that makes sense before pushing.

I always tell people I use a “git reset” based workflow. I rarely “checkout” branches, I just stay on main, reset hard when switching topics, reset soft when squashing, and I only name my branches on the remote end via “git push origin HEAD:some-branch”.

`git branch` is basically my bookmark tool. I commit for a while, then when I want to remember where I am for later, `git branch wip/topic-a-finally-compiles` or whatever. I can reset hard to it when I want to revert back, or any other topic I need. If I forget to name a branch for a commit, the reflog is right there. Nothing’s lost.

And yeah, a soft reset is basically the ideal way to just say “pretend all my changes weren’t committed yet, starting from $ref” and then I make my single commit for my PR. Easy peasy.

Post reply on HN