I started to use JJ during the summer, and now I'm hooked. It feels much easier to do things such as reorder, squash and split commits, as well as change commit message.
And if you messed up anything, you can always undo it by using your `git reflog`. No matter what you did, you can always go back a previous state! Each state is stored as new commit.
dbbb733 (HEAD -> master) HEAD@{18}: rebase (finish): returning to refs/heads/master
dbbb733 (HEAD -> master) HEAD@{19}: rebase (pick): Commit #10.
4bf7bcd HEAD@{20}: rebase (squash): Commit #6.Commit #8.
cdc47c1 HEAD@{21}: rebase (pick): Commit #6.
2ca48d8 HEAD@{22}: rebase (squash): Commit #5.Commit #7.
6a6fccc HEAD@{23}: commit (amend): Commit #5.
86ca5f8 HEAD@{24}: rebase (edit): Commit #5.
1259a52 HEAD@{25}: rebase (reword): Second "Hi" commit.
b33f89c HEAD@{26}: rebase (reword): Second commit.
9cefee3 HEAD@{27}: rebase (pick): Commit #4.
2448f03 HEAD@{28}: rebase (pick): Fourth commit.
5340360 HEAD@{29}: rebase: fast-forward
d1406ed HEAD@{30}: rebase (start): checkout d1406ed8145dc84695eb622bc6b3fc078e8098df
50941da HEAD@{31}: commit: Commit #10.
c23819d HEAD@{32}: commit: Commit #9.
7567b18 HEAD@{33}: commit: Commit #8.
7e99e85 HEAD@{34}: commit: Commit #7.
af1f2fe HEAD@{35}: commit: Commit #6.
6bb5d98 HEAD@{36}: commit: Commit #5.
2a648f2 HEAD@{37}: commit: Commit #4.
a2b6a59 HEAD@{38}: commit: Fourth commit.
12ccd8a HEAD@{39}: commit: Second commit.
5340360 HEAD@{40}: commit (initial): First commit.
Feel like git has a reputation for being hard even for things they're not that much.
I am quite comfortable with `git rebase -i` and I still prefer jj.
Most importantly, I get in this situation less often in the first place. Because reodering and squashing commits can be done with an easy command[1], I tend to squash or rebase as I think of it instead of batching it up to do all at once.
Many times, I don't need to manually target which commit to squash into at all, because I can be editing at the tip of the branch, then use `jj absorb` to automatically squash all my changes down into the commits where they belong.[2]
And `jj undo` is just easier to use than the reflog[3]. While reading the reflog you posted, I have to mentally replay each commit step by step. But really, if I messed something up, it's most likely I want to just go back to `HEAD@{31}`. `jj rebase` is atomic, so the whole thing is undone with one invocation of `jj undo`.
I tried jj a few times but it seems to be incompatible with my workflow.
I tend to have lots of uncommitted files and changes that i want to keep around in this state while I move around branches and while having multiple change lists (jetbrains implementation) that I will commit at some point in time.
This loose, flexible way of using git seems hard to do in jj.
I'd been concerned about that initially, but setting up some gitgnores made this a complete non problem for me. .scratch/ for a lot, *.scratch, and ig-*.
It's also so easy to go back to the change latter and remove the files (after they're already copied elsewhere, or just operations log to go get) that it's really not a problem to just let stuff get in your commits.
In git there's such a strong incentive to do things right, to make clean commits. Imo one of the huge strengths of JJ is abandoning the obsession, and having far far far better tools to clean up after.
> In git there's such a strong incentive to do things right, to make clean commits.
There is no such. There are a lot of tools to manipulate commits and WIP, such as the stash, rebase, cherry pick, extracting and applying patch. You only need clean commits for review and the main branch because that helps the whole team. Your local copy can be as messy as you want to.
The incentive for me is just that it's not the most fun to use git's rebase tools to move things between commits. I'm pretty OK at rebase, but I still would way way rather not try to rebase move a file from one commit to another. And if I did, I'd probably do something hacky to copy the file out rather than try to use git to checkout the file from a rev.
Where-as jj makes rework operations, IMO, basically easy enough (after a couple weeks of use to) that I worry much less about making the right commit the first time.
You can do that with just `jj split` too. The FAQ entry you linked to is for when you accidentally amended a commit and now you want to restore the bookmark to the old commit and move the changes you amended into a new commit on top instead.
I have used both Git and jj. I find it easier in jj.
`git reset` by itself doesn't split a commit AFAIK. You need to then `git add -p` and `git commit` (and recover the commit message from the old commit). And what happens if you had other changes in the working copy first? Or if you want to split a commit that's not at HEAD?
I really do want to learn and love it. It seems I love all the things which are told about it, but, I think JJ has a tutorial problem. I would really want something which focuses on concepts of it rather than workflows. May be some diagrams? I know that JJ-ists think that it is very easy to understand wall of cli printed text, with ascii trees and hash prefixes in bold, but it really isn't. Especially for target audience of tutorials (folks new to JJ).
https://jj-for-everyone.github.io is the most approachable jj tutorial I've seen. I wouldn't say it focuses on workflows, but it does take a "learn by doing" approach a bit more than the "data model first" approach it sounds like you might prefer.
It's still a young tool, it's not surprising that tutorials are a bit lacking (honestly there are surprisingly many for its age). Maybe be the change you want to see in the world and make one? (Which would be an... interesting... way to learn the tool for sure).
Same. It's how I learned Docker and Kubernetes, study the concepts, then I can ask "what's the specific command to do A,B,C" instead of an open ended "how do I do X".
Have you tried it yet? I found the tutorials a bit convoluted. But just giving it a go for a couple of days gave me more in practice than reading docs for a week could. It's not to say the docs couldn't be better - just maybe it's not as much of a barrier as you think.