3 ms·
Right in the first paragraph. > Needless to say, I just don’t get git. What is there not to _get_, honestly? And why is jj so easier to get? The author seems
by manbash 1y ago
Right in the first paragraph.
> Needless to say, I just don’t get git.
What is there not to _get_, honestly? And why is jj so easier to get?
The author seems to focus on how great it is to make changes to your commit history locally, and that you shouldn't worry because it's not pushed yet.
The thing is, I don't want automatic. Automatic sucks. The point of version control is that I am able to curate my changes. The guards and rails of git is what makes me feel safe.
I am still failing to see why JJ is superior to git, or whatever.
- stavros 1y agoIf you don't want automatic, you shouldn't use git. It does too many things automatically, like update your branches' heads whenever you commit, for example.
- 1718627440 1y agoAnd if I don't want that I can detach the HEAD. This isn't to much different. The only thing that changes by using branches is that you have a nice name, it prevents the commits from being GCed and it provides a default name on push.
- killerstorm 1y agoHmm, what guards and rails? There are some convention people follow when working with git to make it safe to use. But those aren't git's features -- they are ways to avoid confusion.
- bdangubic 1y agoIt's not that it is superior, it is completely inferior to git :) That is why you are failing to see :)
- baq 1y agoJJ rebase coupled with committable conflicts is very much superior to git.