atzanteol

It's a single-developer personal project. What's there to think about?

Yeah... I'll get right on that.

jujutsu changes a lot of the affordances to manage changes and I understand that many people will be reluctant to use such a changed interface

You lost all credibility when you just blamed my criticism on "stockholm syndrom". Sorry buddy.

You already have a name for every change/commit: The first line of the commit message, which you can write when you start work on it.

No - that's a "description". You can't check that out. You need to jj log to get the hash of that to switch to it.

I do a lot of complicated stuff with git - what sort of workflow does this solve for you?

git rebase -i and git squash work well for combining commits and cleaning up history. I'm not finding anything about jj yet that does better? And I'm finding a lot about it that are just deal breakers (auto-commit everything, make me lookup hashes of things).

I've started to tinker with it. "auto commit everything" is an absolute deal-breaker for me. There's no world in which I want every file I create to be added to source control without asking. I create lots of log files and other temp files when I work. Maybe I just fetched some .json from a service and put it in tmp.json? Maybe I created a small shell script to automate something I'm doing? I guarantee I'm going to end up pushing that shit upstream by accident at some point.

However, editing past commits and reorganizing the tree is MUCH easier in jj. It feels like the commands are more in line with what I want to do rather than having to figure out the specific set of git commands to do what I want.

I can see that - but that's a "less frequent" task than me switching between branches. And the auto-commit-everything mixed with "you need to lookup a hash ID for each thing you're working on" workflow is very frequent and obnoxious.

But what is amusing is that people now have a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, and plain refuse to believe there could be something better.

Wow - way to just brush away any and all criticism as "that sounds like a you problem".

I just want it to keep my "north is up" setting instead of defaulting to rotating the map whenever I start a route...

Jujutsu does not use branches much because you are focused on the nodes in the commit graph. And instead of giving every of them manually a name, they are identified with change IDs.

This is... unforgivably obnoxious. What's the point of this? That's like saying "Instead of giving every directory a name manually you identify them by inode." The entire point of branches is to have a name that has meaning to me that I can use to refer to work I'm doing.

As soon as you edit a file, the changes will be included in whatever revision you're currently editing—there's no separate staging area in Jujutsu.

I create log files of runs, temporary helper scripts, build output, etc. in my working copy all the time. And this thing is going to "save me the burden" of having to add files manually by just adding... everything it sees.

You'll have noticed that at no point so far did we ever think about creating a branch. That's because Jujutsu's relationship to branches is a bit different to Git's—they're just pointers that you move around so they point to whichever revision you want them to at a given time.

"Simpler" apparently means I get to do a lot more book-keeping than when I use git.

Did you know sunlight causes cancer?

Initial reports are always crap. There's little point in even reporting them.