←back to thread

Jujutsu for everyone

(jj-for-everyone.github.io)
434 points Bogdanp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.528s | 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 #
senekor ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
steveklabnik ◴[] 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 #
1. tsimionescu ◴[] 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 #
2. steveklabnik ◴[] 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)