[stouset]

This seems like a lot more effort than the (to me) more natural jj workflow of maintaining the idealized series of commits plus a working commit on top. As you make tweaks and fixes you just squash the relevant parts into the already-clean history.

Basically, if you don’t get into that sort of situation with commits containing parts they shouldn’t in the first place, you don’t need to do any extra work to clean them up. The tip of your branch should be the only “messy” part.

[3eb7988a1663]

That is a lot of discipline up front. I am sure there are problems which are nicely bucketed, but I usually have to go with the flow and make changes as I see them. I want to keep working with the code, not babysitting version control as I focus on getting the initial version to work.

[surajrmal]

I think it comes down to your ability to plan and understand how the work can be broken down before you try solving it. I often know what every commit will look like before I ever touch the code. I do sometimes learn things and change my mind as I make changes but it doesn't often change my commit structure. I tend to work on a codebase I have 8+ years experience in though. I'm sure it doesn't work in a variety of situations though.

[stouset]

It’s really not.

I start a new branch and begin work. When I’m ready to start organizing that work into a consistent narrative (or when bits are “finished”), I split it out into independent commits. As I keep making fixes and tweaks, I continue squashing bits from my working commit into the parent commits they belong on.

I don’t bother making any independent commits until pieces of what I’m working on are becoming fully-formed. Until then, my working commit just has everything.