81–90 of 336 posts
One thing I've wanted is the ability to group commits into a mega commit. So the history of little changes remains, but as you are scrolling you don't see all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 'jjhub' is a decent immediate first approximation, and is often how I've started out talking about it with people. At the same time, we have to offer real value here, as you can already use jj with github (and I have for a long time now), so there's more to it than that. But yes :)
What I would love: - Everything locally stored in the repo: PRs, comments, issues, discussions, boards, ... - CLI first - Offline first (+ syncing) - A website for hosting/presentation
I think the real news is that some people have started to build what might become something like a "jjhub" . https://ersc.io/
At the risk of being unreasonably negative, stuff like this just makes me feel... tired. Git is... fine. I'm sure it doesn't solve every problem for everyone, and oh boy does it still have many rough edges, but it works and (as the article points out), git has won and is widely adopted. I've extensively used CVS and Subversion in the past. I touched Mercurial and Bazaar when I ran into a project that used it. I remem…
jj is actually so good though. People don't need to know you're using it, which is why it's nice. A problem I run into when working with other people is that code reviews take forever and I need to build on top of them. Code gets merged while it's being reviewed, and it becomes a burden to keep rebasing your stack of PRs. It's also difficult to do things like designing each PR against the main branch, but testing all…
I don't open a PR for each commit, and we use squash commits at work which makes it harder to have this workflow but it still works fine for me.
I rebase only the leaf PR, and I have update-ref enabled to update the branch refs of all other branches in the stack. It works well. The only manual process is that I have to manually force push each branch afterwards.
Lastly, I use the `-x "cargo fmt" -x "cargo clippy"` feature when rebasing (which is missing in jj) to make sure the stack stays in a good state
At the risk of being unreasonably negative, stuff like this just makes me feel... tired. Git is... fine. I'm sure it doesn't solve every problem for everyone, and oh boy does it still have many rough edges, but it works and (as the article points out), git has won and is widely adopted. I've extensively used CVS and Subversion in the past. I touched Mercurial and Bazaar when I ran into a project that used it. I remem…
You can have real branches! Many of them! You don't have to manually merge them! It's decentralized, you can have multiple origins, it lets you work offline! The list goes on and on.
There were many compelling reasons to switch to Git. But for all the articles about jj out there, I've never read any compelling reason to switch to jj. "It easier", "the commands are somewhat more ergonomic"... that's all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 'jjhub' is a decent immediate first approximation, and is often how I've started out talking about it with people. At the same time, we have to offer real value here, as you can already use jj with github (and I have for a long time now), so there's more to it than that. But yes :)
What I would love: - Everything locally stored in the repo: PRs, comments, issues, discussions, boards, ... - CLI first - Offline first (+ syncing) - A website for hosting/presentation
Since JJ has technically git compat, I think there's 2 things needed for it to take off 1. A good vscode extension (there's two so-so ones that I'm not sure are being updated) 2. LLM knowledge. I ask gpt-5 about doing something in jj the other day, it didn't even recognize it at first. When I reminded it it was a vcs it hallucinated half the commands. I ended up figuring it out myself from the docs
> I ask gpt-5 about doing something in jj the other day, it didn't even recognize it at first. Using VC commands an LLM generates for you sounds like a pretty terrible idea anyway. What if they delete your data? Why not spend 5 minutes searching for information written by a human?
At the risk of being unreasonably negative, stuff like this just makes me feel... tired. Git is... fine. I'm sure it doesn't solve every problem for everyone, and oh boy does it still have many rough edges, but it works and (as the article points out), git has won and is widely adopted. I've extensively used CVS and Subversion in the past. I touched Mercurial and Bazaar when I ran into a project that used it. I remem…
I've also worked with CSV (barely) and SVN (more extensively) and I was blown away by Git. You can have real branches! Many of them! You don't have to manually merge them! It's decentralized, you can have multiple origins, it lets you work offline! The list goes on and on. There were many compelling reasons to switch to Git. But for all the articles about jj out there, I've never read any compelling reason to switch…
Hot take, but I personally hate git and almost always rely on a GUI tool or IDE integration to interact with it.
Steve, if you come to NYC hit me up!