←back to thread

94 points vincent_s | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
donatj ◴[] No.40914710[source]
One of the bigger things I try to hammer in to a junior developers mind is to be conscious and thoughtful about their individual commits. To basically never just "git add ." whatever might just happen to be different in their work area, but to ALWAYS review the diff and make the commit a logical collection of changes.

With the lack of staging area it really seems like this encourages the exact opposite. Seems like a good way to get secrets as well as just general junk and clutter committed to your repo history.

If I am working on a big project, I will start to commit change sets as parts of the code solidify without committing other less solid changes. That seems pretty basic. I don't want half finished changes forever committed to history.

replies(6): >>40914953 #>>40915330 #>>40915843 #>>40916939 #>>40919543 #>>40920358 #
1. martinvonz ◴[] No.40915330[source]
This seems like a common misconception. The mention of the staging area in the README points to https://martinvonz.github.io/jj/latest/git-comparison/#the-i.... I'm guessing you didn't click that link. I suppose we need to inline part of the text where we link to it to reduce the number of confused readers.

At this point, I wonder if maybe we should not even mention the staging area. It seems to confuse a lot of people, so maybe it hurts more than it helps to mention it.

replies(2): >>40915467 #>>40915468 #
2. ◴[] No.40915467[source]
3. martinvonz ◴[] No.40915468[source]
Oh, I should also say that we have https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/323 for your concern about automatically tracking files.