[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.

[gabrielgio]

My initial rant to your comment was about this:

> 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? :-)

I have no problem whatsoever if you don't like jj or use git or whatever else you like.

Let's paddle back:

- you are in post about jj

- you comment why you don't like jj

- I comment why I like jj

- you post that.

Like, what is your intention here? If you don't have good faith into trying to understand the tooling, how would it fit your workflow and deflects everything with "I know git, git works, don't tell me to use something else" what is your goal here?

My problem is not your opinion on the tool, is how you approach the debate.

[palata]

I didn't mean it to sound like this.

I have been asking a few questions, and I have received many answers quickly. Which is usually great, but between the "those who don't use jj haven't seen the light and must be in a cult" and the "jj is better because git is impossible to use everyday", it's honestly been harder than anticipated :-).