4 ms·
You know your evangelists have gone haywire when they're explaining that your requirements are wrong instead of listening.
by ants_everywhere 1y ago
You know your evangelists have gone haywire when they're explaining that your requirements are wrong instead of listening.
- dubi_steinkek 1y agoI don't think that's a fair characterization. It's more that there isn't really a big difference between the workflow of # you're on staging area @ commit A # make some untracked changes and console logs you don't wanna commit git add -p && git commit # select only what you want vs # you're on @ empty commit | commit A # make some local changes (which are tracked in @) jj commit -i # select only what you want You're still "in charge what gets tracked" if you treat the last @ commit as your local playground, exactly the same as the staging area. The only difference is that you can use exactly the same tools to manipulate your "staging area" as other commits. The only difference being that you can manipulate your staging area with the same tools as any other commit.
- 1718627440 1y agoWait, what happens when there is a multi-GB file laying around and a jj command is being invoked? Does it start to scan it or is there some threshold. What does it do with cyclic hard-/sym-links?
- Ralith 1y agoThere's a (configurable, easily bypassed) limit for newly created file size to catch that common mistake.
- baq 1y agoI'm far from being an evangelist. I'm trying out jj in one repo out of several and it's far from perfect - but it is useful though, and it does make sense. The requirement of being able to not commit everything by default is simply not necessary from a logical standpoint; if anything, it is itself evangelism that the git way is the right way. The truth is both work just fine, which has been my point all along.