[notmywalrus]

The blockers for many are:

- No support for LFS

- No support for hooks (precommit, etc)

- No? Bad? support for submodules

- No? Bad? support for line ending styles

If you don't care about those, you _should_ be able to use jj completely "undetected". It does encourage rewriting history more than some git workflows like.

In terms of issues in the git repo -- there shouldn't be any. jj uses git as a backend, all commits are stored as git commits, etc. If you colocate the repo, you're able to use git commands directly.

[vermilingua]

Awesome, cheers. It also seems to encourage merges over linear history (I guess because the history of "bookmarks" is deemphasised), is a linear history still achievable?

[ljm]

I think it's exactly the opposite and the mental model of branching is counter-productive with jj. It's much more in line with trunk based development and the idea of managing 'stacks' of changes (kinda like merge trains where multiple smaller PRs in turn depend on each other).

If you had multiple people working on a branch and only some were using jj, then those not using jj would likely have issues with all of the rebasing and force pushes that happen behind the scenes to keep the history clean.

If you were to enforce linear history (like in GitHub) and used rebase merges exclusively then I think it's ideal, especially in terms of reviewing smaller, incremental changes rather than huge pull request diffs.

[notmywalrus]

I find it encourages linear history more by making rebasing easier. Definitely possible, the jj project itself uses a linear history.

[steveklabnik]

I use jj and enforce a linear history on my upstream github.

[steveklabnik]

> No? Bad? support for submodules

No support in the sense that jj won't do anything with them, but you can collocate the repository and use git to deal with them and it's fine.

> - No? Bad? support for line ending styles

That's a No, currently, yeah.