3 ms·

I assume you mean named branches (bookmarks in jj)? Because anonymous branches in jj are trivial: you just `jj new <parent_change_id>` and you have a new branch

by jolux 4mo ago

I assume you mean named branches (bookmarks in jj)? Because anonymous branches in jj are trivial: you just `jj new <parent_change_id>` and you have a new branch. Bookmarks aren’t that bad either IMO, especially with the recent addition of `jj bookmark advance`. Curious if you can say more about the particular difficulties you found keeping them up to date?

nine_k 4mo ago
Imagine that you use jj, while everyone else who works on the repo along with you uses regular git. Is it easy?
- LoganDark 4mo ago
  I use jj all the time for pull requests, in fact I don't use regular git at all anymore, and it's perfectly easy. Not only can I easily keep all my pull requests properly synced to their base branches, but I can easily and very quickly address review comments, keeping the commit stack clean without having to manually squash or amend or anything of that sort. Honestly it's a lot easier and more efficient than git for me because of how much naturally follows rather than requiring explicit imperative fixups.
- jolux 4mo ago
  Yes, that describes me at both jobs I’ve had since learning jj. Hence why I asked for specifics: I’m genuinely curious what other people struggle with, partially because I’d like to help them if I can, and partially because it gives me a better understanding of common pitfalls which helps when teaching other people.
- jgtrosh 4mo ago
  I believe this is the most common scenario, yes. If you're used to actively pushing and pulling from the same branche as your colleagues, you need to learn how to manipulate diverging changes and conflicting bookmarks, but other than that all the jj magic is limited to your local activity.
- stouset 4mo ago
  Yes, that is the case for almost every repo I’ve ever used jj for. It is a complete non-issue. There is virtually zero friction.
- rtpg 4mo ago
  yeah nobody "has to know", especially if everyone else is also rebasing etc constantly.
- tiltowait 4mo ago
  I do this all the time at my job, without issue. I think it's honestly easier than using plain git.
- Macha 4mo ago
  The biggest issue is my git knowledge is atrophying while my coworkers still know me as “the git wrangler” (mostly because most devs have never actually learned git, so any knowledge looks 10x more than theirs). So when a coworker comes to me with a problem like their local main now has 2000 commits that they’ve (or rather Claude Code has…) somehow accidentally re-signed locally and then the 20 commits that actually contain their work, I’m thinking this would be easy to fix with jj rebase but the best advice I can give them for git is to reset their local main to origin/main, create a new branch and then cherry pick their 20 commits to their new branch. Since that’s too time consuming they just checked out the repo again and copied their working copy over, which is the level of avoiding actually using git that the git CLI routinely inspires. Some later googling revealed `git rebase --onto origin/main theirbranch main` was probably what they needed. Which I’m sure would have come to me quicker if I hadn’t dropped the git cli for jj 2+ years ago.
  - igor47 4mo ago
    Are you me? I do feel like I'm starting to forget git as a result of my happy jj use. Thankfully some repos use git submodules, which keeps me at least a little connected
- Balinares 4mo ago
  Yeah, trivial. Only difference my teammates see is that my commits are much tidier and scoped in a way that's easy to review and think about.
y1n0 4mo ago
I think I said named branches, but that is definitely what I mean. I find it strange that people want to work on anonymous branches, but to each their own. I don't so that has no appeal to me. I often work on something and then switch away to something else. it might be a week before i get back to it, and the name of the branch is a clue as to what the heck I was doing. Other people often need to check out a branch I'm working on to help. How does anonymous branching help anyone except a solo developer?
- justinpombrio 4mo ago
  > it might be a week before i get back to it, and the name of the branch is a clue as to what the heck I was doing. Ah, this is what the description (what git would call the commit message) is for. You can set the description even before you've made any changes.
  - em-bee 4mo ago
    that doesn't make sense because when i am working on a feature, i create a branch, name the branch after the feature and then each commit has a description of what is in that commit. the feature has multiple commits, and while i carefully work out what goes in each commit i don't squash them. so with jj i could use a bookmark, ok, but having to manually update that bookmark feels wrong.
    - igor47 4mo ago
      When I'm working in git, I always start work by creating a new branch with a name. Sometimes the branch becomes something different as I work and then I might rename it or more often just keep a stale name around. But in git commit descriptions come later. In jj, it's the opposite. I start with a change, and I often describe it right away. Branches (bookmarks) come at the end. You could, in jj, tag a new empty change with a bookmark as soon as you create it. You don't have to advance the bookmark -- that the first change in a sequence of changes is tagged with a bookmark is probably as much information as you need?

by jolux 4mo ago

nine_k 4mo ago

Imagine that you use jj, while everyone else who works on the repo along with you uses regular git. Is it easy?

LoganDark 4mo ago
I use jj all the time for pull requests, in fact I don't use regular git at all anymore, and it's perfectly easy. Not only can I easily keep all my pull requests properly synced to their base branches, but I can easily and very quickly address review comments, keeping the commit stack clean without having to manually squash or amend or anything of that sort. Honestly it's a lot easier and more efficient than git for me because of how much naturally follows rather than requiring explicit imperative fixups.
jolux 4mo ago
Yes, that describes me at both jobs I’ve had since learning jj. Hence why I asked for specifics: I’m genuinely curious what other people struggle with, partially because I’d like to help them if I can, and partially because it gives me a better understanding of common pitfalls which helps when teaching other people.
jgtrosh 4mo ago
I believe this is the most common scenario, yes. If you're used to actively pushing and pulling from the same branche as your colleagues, you need to learn how to manipulate diverging changes and conflicting bookmarks, but other than that all the jj magic is limited to your local activity.
stouset 4mo ago
Yes, that is the case for almost every repo I’ve ever used jj for. It is a complete non-issue. There is virtually zero friction.
rtpg 4mo ago
yeah nobody "has to know", especially if everyone else is also rebasing etc constantly.
tiltowait 4mo ago
I do this all the time at my job, without issue. I think it's honestly easier than using plain git.
Macha 4mo ago
The biggest issue is my git knowledge is atrophying while my coworkers still know me as “the git wrangler” (mostly because most devs have never actually learned git, so any knowledge looks 10x more than theirs). So when a coworker comes to me with a problem like their local main now has 2000 commits that they’ve (or rather Claude Code has…) somehow accidentally re-signed locally and then the 20 commits that actually contain their work, I’m thinking this would be easy to fix with jj rebase but the best advice I can give them for git is to reset their local main to origin/main, create a new branch and then cherry pick their 20 commits to their new branch. Since that’s too time consuming they just checked out the repo again and copied their working copy over, which is the level of avoiding actually using git that the git CLI routinely inspires. Some later googling revealed `git rebase --onto origin/main theirbranch main` was probably what they needed. Which I’m sure would have come to me quicker if I hadn’t dropped the git cli for jj 2+ years ago.
- igor47 4mo ago
  Are you me? I do feel like I'm starting to forget git as a result of my happy jj use. Thankfully some repos use git submodules, which keeps me at least a little connected
Balinares 4mo ago
Yeah, trivial. Only difference my teammates see is that my commits are much tidier and scoped in a way that's easy to review and think about.

y1n0 4mo ago

I think I said named branches, but that is definitely what I mean. I find it strange that people want to work on anonymous branches, but to each their own. I don't so that has no appeal to me. I often work on something and then switch away to something else. it might be a week before i get back to it, and the name of the branch is a clue as to what the heck I was doing. Other people often need to check out a branch I'm working on to help. How does anonymous branching help anyone except a solo developer?

justinpombrio 4mo ago
> it might be a week before i get back to it, and the name of the branch is a clue as to what the heck I was doing. Ah, this is what the description (what git would call the commit message) is for. You can set the description even before you've made any changes.
- em-bee 4mo ago
  that doesn't make sense because when i am working on a feature, i create a branch, name the branch after the feature and then each commit has a description of what is in that commit. the feature has multiple commits, and while i carefully work out what goes in each commit i don't squash them. so with jj i could use a bookmark, ok, but having to manually update that bookmark feels wrong.
  - igor47 4mo ago
    When I'm working in git, I always start work by creating a new branch with a name. Sometimes the branch becomes something different as I work and then I might rename it or more often just keep a stale name around. But in git commit descriptions come later. In jj, it's the opposite. I start with a change, and I often describe it right away. Branches (bookmarks) come at the end. You could, in jj, tag a new empty change with a bookmark as soon as you create it. You don't have to advance the bookmark -- that the first change in a sequence of changes is tagged with a bookmark is probably as much information as you need?