[palata]

I do understand that point, but to me it sounds like "you should use jj because it's a lot better at solving problems you don't have".

If there are really common use-cases where git is annoying and jj is great, it shouldn't be that hard to explain, should it? If you can say "remember how in the last few days you struggled with this? Jujutsu solves it", then I'm happy to try.

If your argument starts with "imagine you are in a team that looks like X (but your team does not), with a project that looks like Y (but your project does not), and now imagine that you need to do this thing that you have never done before...", then maybe I actually don't need jj?

[gabrielgio]

> "you should use jj because it's a lot better at solving problems you don't have"

It is more like "you should use jj because then you won't have a lot of problem with git that you'd need git to solve"

> it shouldn't be that hard to explain, should it?

It is not. There are plenty of example on this page. For me the biggest one is stacked PR, jj makes it trivial since it tracks the change sets and not commit ids (which are immutable). So you can work on any level of the stacked PR independently, once you're done run "jj git push -r '(trunk()..@ | @::)'" and it will update all the remote branches accordingly. Another feature that works great with stacked PR is that you don't need to solve conflicts right away. You will see a marker in the "jj log" and you can solve it later down the road.

Also another great feature is the operation log, you can just rewind your actions. F'd up a conflict resolution? Just go "jj op undo". That goes for everything, including file changes and rebases. Want to go back the state it was 15 min ago because you didn't like what you did? Merge to the wrong place? "jj op undo"

Adding to that there are hundreds paper cuts that jj fixes, like:

* Simpler mental model for local change, no git stash/add necessary.

* Simpler commit process, you can just work and use "jj describe" whenever where git forces you to write message before creating commit (again because commits are immutable).

* Starting a work is much easier, I can just go "jj new" away without caring about detached head. Nowdays I just use branches (jj bookmarks) for git compatibility reasons.

* Revsets are amazing, much more powerful and expressive than git logs, and since the UX is more consistent you can always work with set of rules that expects a revset with "-r".

Ofc, you can do all of that with git, but it just works better, easier and more consistent with jj.

[palata]

> It is more like "you should use jj because then you won't have a lot of problem with git that you'd need git to solve"

I don't have a lot of problems with git that I need to solve, that's the thing. And I don't get why people keep trying to convince me that I do. It's about me, my opinion should have some value, right? :-)

> It is not. There are plenty of example on this page.

The problem is that many examples, to me, sound like it's exactly like git but the author of the example doesn't know how to do it in git. For instance, you wrote a whole paragraph about "undo", as if git did not have that feature. Isn't that exactly `git reflog`? Turns out I had a need for it 2 times in the last 10 years, and it just worked.

> Simpler mental model for local change, no git stash/add necessary.

I can deal with git stash/add without feeling like I'm thinking hard. This is a class of examples that makes me think that jj is for people who are not comfortable with git.

It feels like the people who use jj tend to somehow get stuck on detached head with git, and that's a big problem for them.

Again, I'm not saying that jj is not cool, and probably I should try it. But I see a ton of comments that really, really sound like "I can't believe people still do basic arithmetic in their head: they should get a calculator and they would see how superior it is. With a calculator, you never make those frequent and annoying mistakes like 3+5=9 again! Plus you can do 403985/13 easily!". And when I say "I usually deal with basic arithmetic that I do just fine in my head, and I don't actually frequently make mistakes like 3+5=9", I feel like I sound like an elitist.

I can't remember the last time I had to do something "hard" in git. So it sounds like jj may make something simple slightly simpler, at the cost of dealing with a new tool.

[gabrielgio]

> I don't have a lot of problems with git that I need to solve, that's the thing. And I don't get why people keep trying to convince me

You are in *forum* in a post *about jj* saying there is no reason to use jj. We are just interacting as you'd expect in forum. If you don't see any reason to use anything else and don't want to hear anything about it steer away from these posts.

No one is trying to convince you personally, we are just discussing the tool. Go use git and be happy.

I sincerely won't read anything else past that line.

[palata]

> You are in forum in a post about jj saying there is no reason to use jj

I honestly am not. I am genuinely interested. Everytime there is a post about jj I'm about to try, and then I see a comment like yours, saying "with jj you just use the intuitive syntax `jj git push -r '(trunk\(?.\).x#@ | @@.^)'`, which is a lot simpler than knowing about this weird concept of stash" and it makes me think that maybe, I'll try again next time.

[gabrielgio]

> I honestly am not.

You literately are, look at you comments.

> I am genuinely interested.

If you are interest in learning you should take people words on good faith, my comment on "jj git push -r '(trunk()..@ | @::)'" is complex operation to update many stacked PRs not compared to local git index operations. Also in my comment I mentioned revsets and the "-r". It is a language to query logs which you should've check if you genuinely wanted to learn about it, which you don't.

Just look at your answer, you literately ignored everything I mentioned and took what I said out of context just to bash on jj for some reason.

[palata]

> just to bash on jj for some reason

Actually, to be blunt (you're already offended anyway): what I'm saying is that I find (personal opinion) that many evangelists here (you included) don't sell jj really well. If so many people are actual fans of jj, there must be something there. I'm just struggling to find it between the "you're probably too dumb to understand a stash so you should use jj" and the "let me explain to you this great concept that jj has which allows you to undo changes in a way that sounds like git cannot do exactly that".

So no, I'm not criticising jj :-). And I'm not convinced I need it.