←back to thread

Jujutsu for everyone

(jj-for-everyone.github.io)
434 points Bogdanp | 5 comments | 31 Aug 25 15:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
marcuskaz ◴[31 Aug 25 16:14 UTC] 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 #
senekor ◴[31 Aug 25 16:29 UTC] No.45084439[source]▶
Hi, author here. Since the target audience is people with little to no Git experience, a detailed comparison would not make sense. I did simply make that claim because the weirdness of Git's UI is usually justified by saying how powerful it is. So this statement is just intended to ease the readers mind that they're not missing out on power by choosing a tool that's easier to learn.
replies(3): >>45084539 #>>45084685 #>>45087146 #
marcuskaz ◴[31 Aug 25 16:51 UTC] No.45084685[source]▶
I suppose I want the article written for the experienced developer, convince me why I should try something different than the huge defacto standard that is git. I'm totally open to trying something new, but need a compelling case.

Beyond `jj undo` everything else in this thread feels just as complicated as git.

replies(3): >>45084810 #>>45088010 #>>45089061 #
Izkata ◴[01 Sep 25 03:05 UTC] No.45089061[source]▶
A couple of them seem more complicated, like the example further up on the page for postponing merge conflicts. In git I'd just abort the merge and do it later.

I also found the exchange about named branches funny, that ends with:

> Ok, you need to call `jj bookmark set -r@ XYX` (or `jj b s -r@ XYX`), so what?

Apparently this is excusable, but people like to complain about git's commands being too obtuse - as far as I understand the git version is "git checkout -b XYX", right? (Or I guess "git switch -c XYX" with the new commands)

replies(2): >>45089144 #>>45091961 #
1. steveklabnik ◴[01 Sep 25 03:19 UTC] No.45089144[source]▶
That’s backwards, your git command is “move to this branch” and the jj command is “update where the branch points to,” so git reset —hard.
replies(2): >>45089262 #>>45091987 #
2. Izkata ◴[01 Sep 25 03:46 UTC] No.45089262[source]▶
The git commands are "create new branch at HEAD and switch to it", and the context of the thread above sounded like that's the functionality they wanted?
replies(1): >>45089628 #
3. steveklabnik ◴[01 Sep 25 05:07 UTC] No.45089628[source]▶
“jj bookmark set” doesn’t create a new branch and switch to it. It updates the head of an existing branch to a new place.

jj doesn’t have a “name a new branch and switch to it” command, because you usually don’t bother naming branches until you’re using them up to a forge, and there’s no “current branch” concept. I creat new named branches with “jj git push -c” which names it for me, and switching branches is closest to jj new or jj edit.

4. tsimionescu ◴[01 Sep 25 11:55 UTC] No.45091987[source]▶
They're closer to the right command than you are. `git reset --hard` will move HEAD to the given branch. The right command would be `git checkout -B branch` / `git switch -C branch`, to create or update `branch` to point to the current commit (except for the side effect that future commits will then go onto `branch` in git, while they won't in jj).

Basically, jj is just like working with git in detached head mode as far as I can tell.

replies(1): >>45096660 #
5. steveklabnik ◴[01 Sep 25 21:13 UTC] No.45096660[source]▶
You know, I was in the middle of some long flights and missed the -b! You’re right about that part, that’s my bad! I’m starting to forget git details at this point, haha. (I never used switch, always checkout -b)