[Disposal8433]

> Since jj doesn't have names branches

False. You need to call `jj branch set -r@ XYX` manually which can be a PITA but you only need to do that once you push. Or there is `jj git push --named XYZ=@` which moves the branch.

[63stack]

False. The branch subcommand has been removed. You have to use bookmarks now.

[comonoid]

Ok, you need to call `jj bookmark set -r@ XYX` (or `jj b s -r@ XYX`), so what?

[MrJohz]

They're not quite the same thing as named branches in Git. In jj, a branch is a chain of commits. This chain of commits cannot be named. It's possible to create a bookmark, which is a name for a particular commit, and it's possible to use that bookmark to refer to a branch of commits (e.g. jj rebase's -b flag), but this is different from naming a branch like you would in git.

This is a subtle difference, and most of the time it doesn't matter at all, but in this case there is a difference between how bookmarks work in jj, and how branches work in git.

[jbverschoor]

Such nice community.. I think I’ll stick to git, even though Torvalds isn’t the nicest person in the world

[comonoid]

I'm replying to a comment that starts with accusation: "False.". My point is that correct version differs just by a single word. It can be just a tipo in Disposal8433's comment, not "false".

[paradox460]

Some people will look anywhere to justify their stubborn refusal to try new things. I wouldn't get too upset by it

[steveklabnik]

I agree the parent is being a bit rude, but also, Linus hasn’t been involved in git for years, just fyi.

[63stack]

Don't base your opinion on some idiotic comments on HN, they are probably not part of a "community". Just try it, it's a legit super good tool.