4 ms·

Interesting ideas! I especially like the automatic rebasing and associated ideas. It's a bit strange to see "jj st" will automatically add all files to the "wo

Interesting ideas! I especially like the automatic rebasing and associated ideas. It's a bit strange to see "jj st" will automatically add all files to the "working copy" commit. This means that when I initially create my project, run "npm install" to install 500 MB of dependencies, and then run "jj st" to figure out what to include in my first commit, the command is going to copy all of that into a commit object for no reason. I don't think I like that behavior, to be honest. Is this a requirement of any of the other unique features? Could this be turned off, or modified to be an explicit operation? [append] To be clear, the fact that it's `jj st` is actually a big part of the problem for me: this is the command I use to figure out what to put into my `.gitignore` in the first place! I don't think that any of the "read-only" commands should be making these kind of changes.

bitcharmer 5y ago
Why put 500mb worth of downloadable dependencies in your source tree? This sounds like a terrible thing to do.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  Have used node.js, I find this, conceptually, much more simple to trace through than search paths. Of course there are major cons.
- Too 5y ago
  This is the default behavior of npm. The most popular package manager on the planet. It might not be technically the most superior way to do things, but given the widespread use, tooling around it need to be compatible.
  - IceDane 5y ago
    It puts those deps in your source tree, sure, but no one advocates committing them to your repository except in few specific scenarios. This kind of thing is also pretty much standard for most programming languages today.
    - Too 5y ago
      Isn’t parent explicitly trying to avoid committing the node_modules?
      - IceDane 5y ago
        It seems to me bitcharmer was railing against the notion that you would have X MB of dependencies in your project folder. I was just pointing out that this is basically standard practice today(and the alternatives are usually awful) and that even if you do have your deps in the project folder, you don't usually check them into version control, so his entire point is moot.
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      > This kind of thing is also pretty much standard for most programming languages today No, it is not. Have a look at java, golang or rust. None of those languages advocate for embedding deps in your source tree as it's quite clearly a terrible anti-pattern to follow. I wouldn't consider how JavaScript does stuff a good example.
- baq 5y ago
  500 MB may be excessive for git, but it is a good practice to check in your compiler together with your source if you use perforce. It’s just an extreme case of monorepo.
- cudgy 5y ago
  Why have 500mb of dependencies if they dwarf your app and are too large to have in your source tree?
brigandish 5y ago
In this case, a global .gitignore would be a help (or something like Yarn's plug n play?). I know that it doesn't really address what you're pointing to here, I can see what you're saying. Perhaps that's a good time to use the undo operation.

bitcharmer 5y ago

Why put 500mb worth of downloadable dependencies in your source tree? This sounds like a terrible thing to do.

rileymat2 5y ago
Have used node.js, I find this, conceptually, much more simple to trace through than search paths. Of course there are major cons.
Too 5y ago
This is the default behavior of npm. The most popular package manager on the planet. It might not be technically the most superior way to do things, but given the widespread use, tooling around it need to be compatible.
- IceDane 5y ago
  It puts those deps in your source tree, sure, but no one advocates committing them to your repository except in few specific scenarios. This kind of thing is also pretty much standard for most programming languages today.
  - Too 5y ago
    Isn’t parent explicitly trying to avoid committing the node_modules?
    - IceDane 5y ago
      It seems to me bitcharmer was railing against the notion that you would have X MB of dependencies in your project folder. I was just pointing out that this is basically standard practice today(and the alternatives are usually awful) and that even if you do have your deps in the project folder, you don't usually check them into version control, so his entire point is moot.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    > This kind of thing is also pretty much standard for most programming languages today No, it is not. Have a look at java, golang or rust. None of those languages advocate for embedding deps in your source tree as it's quite clearly a terrible anti-pattern to follow. I wouldn't consider how JavaScript does stuff a good example.
baq 5y ago
500 MB may be excessive for git, but it is a good practice to check in your compiler together with your source if you use perforce. It’s just an extreme case of monorepo.
cudgy 5y ago
Why have 500mb of dependencies if they dwarf your app and are too large to have in your source tree?

brigandish 5y ago

In this case, a global .gitignore would be a help (or something like Yarn's plug n play?). I know that it doesn't really address what you're pointing to here, I can see what you're saying. Perhaps that's a good time to use the undo operation.