3 ms·

Is this yet another case of git improving its UI due to jujutsu? (This is exactly how jj does it.) If you like this kind of convenient CLI command, I would se

by BeetleB 2mo ago

Is this yet another case of git improving its UI due to jujutsu? (This is exactly how jj does it.) If you like this kind of convenient CLI command, I would seriously recommend giving jj a try. To give you an idea, I never bothered splitting a commit in my git days. I do it almost daily with jj. Lots of other niceties that I didn't bother with in git, but routinely do in jj. jj has fewer commands than git, yet does everything git does.

steveklabnik 2mo ago
My understanding is that `git history` was started after seeing jj, yes. I don't have a citation for you though, I could be wrong, that's just what I remember.
- prattmic 2mo ago
  > “That moment when you realize that a tool simply fixes all the UI issues that you had and that you have been developing for the last 20 years was not exactly great." He had two options: despair or learn from the competition. He chose to learn from it. https://lwn.net/Articles/1057561/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1057561/ which goes on to explain that this was the motivation for git history.
  - BeetleB 2mo ago
    "He discussed the workflow for splitting a Git commit, which involves seven separate commands with Git's current UI. Most users do not know how to do this, he said. The goal is to add several ""opinionated subcommands"" that make more modern styles of working with merge requests, such as stacked branches, much easier."
rkangel 2mo ago
Yes this is how jj does it, except that jj is more powerful because it does automatic rebase of all the downstream commits. If you have any descendants of the gir history split (i.e. it's not the most recent) you'll have to do some more work (a rebase) to get back to a useful history. I think you can do this in the middle of an interactive rebase which is ok, but still not as easy.
jgtrosh 2mo ago
Also, `jj split` can use alternative tooling to the built-in TUI, whereas I don't think `git history split` can.

by BeetleB 2mo ago

steveklabnik 2mo ago

My understanding is that `git history` was started after seeing jj, yes. I don't have a citation for you though, I could be wrong, that's just what I remember.

prattmic 2mo ago
> “That moment when you realize that a tool simply fixes all the UI issues that you had and that you have been developing for the last 20 years was not exactly great." He had two options: despair or learn from the competition. He chose to learn from it. https://lwn.net/Articles/1057561/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1057561/ which goes on to explain that this was the motivation for git history.
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  "He discussed the workflow for splitting a Git commit, which involves seven separate commands with Git's current UI. Most users do not know how to do this, he said. The goal is to add several ""opinionated subcommands"" that make more modern styles of working with merge requests, such as stacked branches, much easier."

rkangel 2mo ago

Yes this is how jj does it, except that jj is more powerful because it does automatic rebase of all the downstream commits. If you have any descendants of the gir history split (i.e. it's not the most recent) you'll have to do some more work (a rebase) to get back to a useful history. I think you can do this in the middle of an interactive rebase which is ok, but still not as easy.

jgtrosh 2mo ago

Also, `jj split` can use alternative tooling to the built-in TUI, whereas I don't think `git history split` can.