[porridgeraisin]

I find it quite funny that this is exactly the kind of the thing "just don't use ... 8+hours daily ... Never had issues ..." that people who remain with git say.

And now people are saying it for jj.

Endless cycle it seems, with every new tool.

[jjfanboy]

`jj edit` is specifically and exclusively for mutating existing commits.

Thus, if you're worried about mutating existing commits, don't use it.

What exactly is so hard to understand here? You're not making the gotcha point you seem to think you are - it's not like it's some common command that is hyper-overloaded and has to be used specially.

Just another example of the usual HN skepticism that isn't even skepticism, it's just smug ignorance. It's so exhausting. But sure, the countless people that keep claiming its the single biggest tool improvement in some time are just idiots? suckers? hype-beasts? making it up? or what?

Like, the irony of you assuming that it must be as convoluted and hard to use as git is just... awesome. I love the Git defenders that literally can't fathom that there is actually a better mental model or simpler tool, and can't even be arsed to try it and see.

[eproxus]

With JJ you can even override the ref spec of what should be considered a mutable commit. Feel free to set it to all commits and JJ will not allow you to mutate anything unless you pass the --ignore-mutable flag.

For example, I've configured it for me to make any commit by anyone else mutable regardless of branch:

    [revset-aliases]
    # To always consider changes by others immutable:
    "immutable_heads()" = "builtin_immutable_heads() | (trunk().. & ~mine())"