←back to thread

I see a future in jj

(steveklabnik.com)
325 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | 22 Oct 25 17:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
j2kun ◴[22 Oct 25 20:58 UTC] No.45675064[source]▶
> I also don’t mean to imply that everyone at Google is using jj, but the contingent feels significant to me, given how hard it is to introduce a new VCS inside a company of that size.

I don't mean to imply that Google is fickle, but anything besides Google's perforce fork is deprecated every few years. We used to have a proper git wrapper, then mercurial+extensions, now jj is supposed to replace the mercurial thing, all in 7-ish years?

replies(4): >>45675071 #>>45677002 #>>45677749 #>>45679002 #
1. Balinares ◴[23 Oct 25 06:59 UTC] No.45679002[source]▶
In fairness that's not much different from any other internal Google tool. Those don't often have a two-digit years shelf life.

I'll venture that jj is there to stay, however. If not at Google, then in general. It's just too much of a quantum leap. I think I've finally identified what about it sits so right with me: a change's identity is preserved through its revisions. In bare git, after a rebase or an amend, you get a wholly different commit that just happens to have a similar content.

Mind you, I'll also venture that jj will remain based on git as its storage backend, despite its stated goal otherwise. Git's internals are just too good at what they do to make it worthwhile to replace them.