3 ms·
> Trying out jj is super low-risk--since it uses git as a backend, you can test it out and bail back to git without any drawbacks other than a detached head sta
by eru 7mo ago
> Trying out jj is super low-risk--since it uses git as a backend, you can test it out and bail back to git without any drawbacks other than a detached head state.
Btw, the risk of trying out other modern version control systems is nearly as low: most of them are compatible with git and you can convert back and forth. That definitely includes mercurial etc.
- locknitpicker 7mo ago> That definitely includes mercurial etc. People tried mercurial. They went back to git.
- eru 7mo agoSome did, sure. I made a more limited claim: you can convert back and forth between mercurial and git.
- locknitpicker 7mo ago> Some did, sure. Not some. I mean, even the few source code repository services that supported mercurial started dropping it. See Bitbucket's announcement: https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket https://www.atlassian.com/blog/bitbucket/sunsetting-mercuria... > According to a Stack Overflow Developer Survey, almost 90% of developers use Git, while Mercurial is the least popular version control system with only about 3% developer adoption. In fact, Mercurial usage on Bitbucket is steadily declining, and the percentage of new Bitbucket users choosing Mercurial has fallen to less than 1%.
- Shish2k 7mo agoI tried Sapling (Facebook's fork of mercurial with more polished git-compatibility layers) and never looked back for any of my own projects. I recently started a new job where the vanilla git CLI is the only git frontend installed on company servers, and the regressions in user-experience are painful :(