Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Jujutsu for everyone

    (jj-for-everyone.github.io)
    434 points Bogdanp | 11 comments | 31 Aug 25 15:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    1. BeetleB ◴[31 Aug 25 17:25 UTC] No.45084995[source]▶
    I had used jj for only a month before I switched back to git for a particular project at work. I felt that jj was *really* nice, but nothing more.

    After returning to vanilla git, I was missing the jj convenience within hours.

    https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2025/Aug/the-jujutsu-effect/

    replies(2): >>45085022 #>>45085178 #
    2. incognito124 ◴[31 Aug 25 17:28 UTC] No.45085022[source]▶
    Something about appreciating only after losing
    replies(1): >>45085265 #
    3. andai ◴[31 Aug 25 17:45 UTC] No.45085178[source]▶
    >but nothing more

    What does that imply?

    replies(2): >>45085222 #>>45085466 #
    4. lemonberry ◴[31 Aug 25 17:49 UTC] No.45085222[source]▶
    From their post:

    "Within hours, I found myself being exceedingly cautious about everything. I missed the confidence jj undo gave me. I missed the simplicity of jj new and jj describe."

    replies(1): >>45085468 #
    5. ysofunny ◴[31 Aug 25 17:53 UTC] No.45085265[source]▶
    also, demonstrating a marked improvement in the experience.

    it really does seem like we all gonna be using jj soon enough

    I recall pijul.org that was another working prototype of better git

    and I wonder how much overlap is there in the way they have made the improvements.

    replies(4): >>45085444 #>>45085469 #>>45085608 #>>45085649 #
    6. fiddlerwoaroof ◴[31 Aug 25 18:10 UTC] No.45085444{3}[source]▶
    pijul uses a completely different model of version control than git (stores diffs rather than snapshots). And so the cost of switching and interoperation is a bit higher than jj which basically acts like a nice UI over git.
    7. BeetleB ◴[31 Aug 25 18:12 UTC] No.45085466[source]▶
    What I mean is that using jj didn't seem like a radically new thing - it was simply a nicer git.

    But when I had to go back to git, I learned that all those little niceties really added up.

    8. nchmy ◴[31 Aug 25 18:12 UTC] No.45085468{3}[source]▶
    You missed the point - the question was, if jj is really nice, then why "nothing more"?
    9. ivanb ◴[31 Aug 25 18:12 UTC] No.45085469{3}[source]▶
    Supposedly, Pijul doesn't have the "force-push to trunk" problem. This alone makes it interesting.
    10. baq ◴[31 Aug 25 18:26 UTC] No.45085608{3}[source]▶
    pijul is one of the projects that I’d just sponsor a team for a few years if I was a megacorp or a government research agency because it’s just so damn cool in theory, but has too many rough edges in day to day practice (IOW I’d like to try it but would need pijul colocate for it to make sense)
    11. hooper ◴[31 Aug 25 18:30 UTC] No.45085649{3}[source]▶
    Jujutsu has "first class conflicts", but it's different from Pijul's "theory of patches". As far as I know, the other big stuff like "working copy is a commit" and the "operation log" (which allows for `jj undo`, safe concurrency, etc) is not present in Pijul. The approaches to Git interop are very different.