3 ms·
OK but again thats awful, because @ IS A COMMIT, so you are only a "git push" away from accidentally pushing arbitrary garbage instead of proper changes
by 38 2y ago
OK but again thats awful, because @ IS A COMMIT, so you are only a "git push" away from accidentally pushing arbitrary garbage instead of proper changes
- nasso_dev 2y agoActually, `jj git push` will only push named branches, which are now called "bookmarks". You simply don't attach a bookmark to @, and `jj git push` will NEVER push it (to what branch would it push?) The branch you're working on is instead on @-. So when you squash, it updates the branch.
- abhinavk 2y agoYou need to think commits as of a non-depleting commodity. And named-branches (bookmarks) as something that is explicitly set to newer commits/changes.
- aseipp 2y agoYou are simply misinformed. `git push` always pushes the HEAD by default without question, but jj does not. @ is not special in any way, so it does not get special treatment from push. It will only push branches you tell it to or that have been amended/updated and are not immutable. jj also does not update any branch pointers (or "bookmarks" as we call them) unless you explicitly ask it to. You have to explicitly run `jj branch set ...` and then run `jj git push` to get the behavior you are describing, which is much more explicit.