←back to thread

Jujutsu for everyone

(jj-for-everyone.github.io)
434 points Bogdanp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.711s | source
Show context
marcuskaz ◴[] No.45084298[source]
> Jujutsu is more powerful than Git. Despite the fact that it's easier to learn and more intuitive, it actually has loads of awesome capabilities for power users that completely leave Git in the dust.

Like? This isn't explained, I'm curious on why I would want to use it, but this is just an empty platitude, doesn't really give me a reason to try.

replies(7): >>45084316 #>>45084327 #>>45084439 #>>45084678 #>>45088571 #>>45092597 #>>45093098 #
pkulak ◴[] No.45084678[source]
Say you start on Main, then make a new branch that you intend to be a PR someday. You make commit 1. Then another. Maybe 6 more. Now you realize that something in commit 1 should have been done differently. So, you "edit" commit 1. All the other commits automatically rebase on top and when you go back to your last commit, it's there. Same with _after_ you PR and someone notices something in commit 3. Edit it, push, and it's fixed.

You can do all that in Git, but I sure as hell never did; and my co-workers really appreciate PRs that are broken into lots of little commits that can be easily looked over, one by one.

replies(4): >>45084727 #>>45084733 #>>45084935 #>>45085106 #
adastra22 ◴[] No.45084733[source]
I do this every day in git. “git rebase -i [hash]” fyi.
replies(1): >>45084782 #
baq ◴[] No.45084782[source]
you think you do, but you don't; jj edit is much, much better than an edit step in a rebase - it essentially keeps rebasing while you're editing, so you can always see which changes get conflicts, then you are free to resolve them, or not, at your convenience.
replies(3): >>45084799 #>>45086057 #>>45086723 #
8n4vidtmkvmk ◴[] No.45086057[source]
Jj edit isn't even the jj way of doing things. Should be jj new. Unless you have changes stacked after then you'd do jj new -A. And squish when you're done
replies(1): >>45086389 #
BeetleB ◴[] No.45086389[source]
As a relatively new jj user, I'm curious. Why is the jj new -A + squash better than just a jj edit?
replies(3): >>45086416 #>>45087841 #>>45089421 #
1. hdjrudni ◴[] No.45087841[source]
I forget where I read it (maybe from Martin), but one reason I like to `jj new` before I start any work is just because it makes it easy to revert or abandon if I don't end up liking it. And also easy to diff. `jj new` is pretty much 'free' anyway, every time you make an edit you're creating new commits (not changes!) anyway.
replies(1): >>45088700 #
2. BeetleB ◴[] No.45088700[source]
Oh I'm good with jj new for any new thing I'm working on. But I was wondering why one would use jj new -A to fix a commit in the past vs jj edit,
replies(1): >>45088815 #
3. kps ◴[] No.45088815[source]
Mostly to keep the new changes isolated from the original commit until they're ready, I think. The only time I use `jj edit` is to resume a leaf I left in the middle of something (where I might have used `git stash pop` but without needing to stash).