3 ms·

Thanks! > Did you consider the recent git nomenclature change to use "switch" for branch operations, and "co" for file operations? Actually, isn't "restore" f

Thanks! > Did you consider the recent git nomenclature change to use "switch" for branch operations, and "co" for file operations? Actually, isn't "restore" for file operations? My impression was that everyone agrees that `git checkout` does too many different things. In particular, it's both for switching branches and for restoring file content. So they added the new `git switch` and `git restore` with limited scope. I strongly suspect that they would have used `git checkout` for the former if that wasn't already taken by the existing command. > And, do you have plans on supporting signed commits, either via gpg or the newfound SSH key signing? No, that's not something I've even started thinking about. I'll have to read up on how it works in Git first. Patches welcome, though :) > I'm super excited to try out the conflict resolution mechanism, because that's a major painpoint for my long-lived PR branches You mean so you can continuously rebase them without having to resolve conflicts right away? Yes, that's one of the benefits of first-class conflicts. Another benefit, which took me a long time to realize how useful it is, is the auto-rebase feature.

mdaniel 5y ago
> No, that's not something I've even started thinking about. I'll have to read up on how it works in Git first. Patches welcome, though :) I opened an issue and provided links to the docs, and a link to the current way that git implements it: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/58 https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/58 As I was trying to find the correct command in jj for where to add the new argument, I realized that this may not play nice-nice with jj's commit-everything model, so I'm actually prepared for the issue to be closed WONTFIX :-) As for the patches welcome part, I notice that the Google CLA bot is on your repo. While I do have the CLA signed for my Gmail address, it seemed like some major tomfoolery to try and add my current github email address (and the one which backs my GPG key, to bring this full circle!) to the existing CLA process. Do you intend to keep that CLA mechanism in place, or was it just an oversight?
- martinvonz 5y ago
  > I realized that this may not play nice-nice with jj's commit-everything model Yes, I suppose you might not want to sign every working copy commit, but as you noted on the issue, it would probably make sense on `jj close/commit` (aliases). > Do you intend to keep that CLA mechanism in place I started working on this project internally and then open-sourced it. I don't think I'm allowed to remove the CLA bot. I understand that it's annoying :(
smichel17 5y ago
I had a discussion about the git cli UX around branching/stashing/checkout a while back. Perhaps you'll find it useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807410 (I post this somewhat selfishly, as I'm basically describing how I wish git worked ;)

mdaniel 5y ago

> No, that's not something I've even started thinking about. I'll have to read up on how it works in Git first. Patches welcome, though :) I opened an issue and provided links to the docs, and a link to the current way that git implements it: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/58 https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/58 As I was trying to find the correct command in jj for where to add the new argument, I realized that this may not play nice-nice with jj's commit-everything model, so I'm actually prepared for the issue to be closed WONTFIX :-) As for the patches welcome part, I notice that the Google CLA bot is on your repo. While I do have the CLA signed for my Gmail address, it seemed like some major tomfoolery to try and add my current github email address (and the one which backs my GPG key, to bring this full circle!) to the existing CLA process. Do you intend to keep that CLA mechanism in place, or was it just an oversight?

martinvonz 5y ago
> I realized that this may not play nice-nice with jj's commit-everything model Yes, I suppose you might not want to sign every working copy commit, but as you noted on the issue, it would probably make sense on `jj close/commit` (aliases). > Do you intend to keep that CLA mechanism in place I started working on this project internally and then open-sourced it. I don't think I'm allowed to remove the CLA bot. I understand that it's annoying :(

smichel17 5y ago

I had a discussion about the git cli UX around branching/stashing/checkout a while back. Perhaps you'll find it useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807410 (I post this somewhat selfishly, as I'm basically describing how I wish git worked ;)