3 ms·

I had used jj for only a month before I switched back to git for a particular project at work. I felt that jj was really nice, but nothing more. After return

I had used jj for only a month before I switched back to git for a particular project at work. I felt that jj was *really* nice, but nothing more. After returning to vanilla git, I was missing the jj convenience within hours. https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2025/Aug/the-jujutsu-effect/ https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2025/Aug/the-jujutsu-effect/

incognito124 1y ago
Something about appreciating only after losing
- ysofunny 1y ago
  also, demonstrating a marked improvement in the experience. it really does seem like we all gonna be using jj soon enough I recall pijul.org that was another working prototype of better git and I wonder how much overlap is there in the way they have made the improvements.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 1y ago
    pijul uses a completely different model of version control than git (stores diffs rather than snapshots). And so the cost of switching and interoperation is a bit higher than jj which basically acts like a nice UI over git.
  - ivanb 1y ago
    Supposedly, Pijul doesn't have the "force-push to trunk" problem. This alone makes it interesting.
  - baq 1y ago
    pijul is one of the projects that I’d just sponsor a team for a few years if I was a megacorp or a government research agency because it’s just so damn cool in theory, but has too many rough edges in day to day practice (IOW I’d like to try it but would need pijul colocate for it to make sense)
  - hooper 1y ago
    Jujutsu has "first class conflicts", but it's different from Pijul's "theory of patches". As far as I know, the other big stuff like "working copy is a commit" and the "operation log" (which allows for `jj undo`, safe concurrency, etc) is not present in Pijul. The approaches to Git interop are very different.
andai 1y ago
>but nothing more What does that imply?
- lemonberry 1y ago
  From their post: "Within hours, I found myself being exceedingly cautious about everything. I missed the confidence jj undo gave me. I missed the simplicity of jj new and jj describe."
  - nchmy 1y ago
    You missed the point - the question was, if jj is really nice, then why "nothing more"?
- BeetleB 1y ago
  What I mean is that using jj didn't seem like a radically new thing - it was simply a nicer git. But when I had to go back to git, I learned that all those little niceties really added up.

I had used jj for only a month before I switched back to git for a particular project at work. I felt that jj was *really* nice, but nothing more. After return

incognito124 1y ago

Something about appreciating only after losing

ysofunny 1y ago
also, demonstrating a marked improvement in the experience. it really does seem like we all gonna be using jj soon enough I recall pijul.org that was another working prototype of better git and I wonder how much overlap is there in the way they have made the improvements.
- fiddlerwoaroof 1y ago
  pijul uses a completely different model of version control than git (stores diffs rather than snapshots). And so the cost of switching and interoperation is a bit higher than jj which basically acts like a nice UI over git.
- ivanb 1y ago
  Supposedly, Pijul doesn't have the "force-push to trunk" problem. This alone makes it interesting.
- baq 1y ago
  pijul is one of the projects that I’d just sponsor a team for a few years if I was a megacorp or a government research agency because it’s just so damn cool in theory, but has too many rough edges in day to day practice (IOW I’d like to try it but would need pijul colocate for it to make sense)
- hooper 1y ago
  Jujutsu has "first class conflicts", but it's different from Pijul's "theory of patches". As far as I know, the other big stuff like "working copy is a commit" and the "operation log" (which allows for `jj undo`, safe concurrency, etc) is not present in Pijul. The approaches to Git interop are very different.

andai 1y ago

>but nothing more What does that imply?

lemonberry 1y ago
From their post: "Within hours, I found myself being exceedingly cautious about everything. I missed the confidence jj undo gave me. I missed the simplicity of jj new and jj describe."
- nchmy 1y ago
  You missed the point - the question was, if jj is really nice, then why "nothing more"?
BeetleB 1y ago
What I mean is that using jj didn't seem like a radically new thing - it was simply a nicer git. But when I had to go back to git, I learned that all those little niceties really added up.