[surajrmal]

A lot of humans don't currently trust agents to touch VCS today. I also find that my agent tends to be much better about dealing with jj than it is with git.

[hu3]

Culture change is hard.

A lot of humans still don't use git too.

Many do only when they are forced.

And it's much easier for a professional to be forced to use LLMs than jj when it comes to versioning assist (not even comparable in mindshare but the obvious needs to be said sometimes).

So unfortunately I'm afraid jj is not going to achieve critical mass before 99.99% of merges are done by AI which don't need jj.

[surajrmal]

That's the beauty of jj. It doesn't need critical mass. If the community remains small it's fine. If it blows up in adoption that's also fine.

Also there are many ways to use llms. Some people control it at code review, but others control it as the VCS.

[hu3]

Sure just like any non-critical tool. It's optional.

LLMs will do most of the work anyways. And they don't need jj. Like I said, jj helps solving a human problem in an LLM era.

It's hardly worth using more of the precious LLM context with jj instructions when git does the job and is mandatory anyways.

[surajrmal]

jj is in the training data for at least Gemini these days. My experience is it uses less tokens to do similar workflows with jj vs git because they are simpler.

Also, remember that humans aren't going away. The touch points are changing but they still exist. The VCS is a common touch point for many and my preferred one. For others I'm sure it's online code review tools. If an agent is operating under my name in my workspace I want to manage it within the confines of my workspace. Once it becomes more agentic and operates as it's own entity I'm sure I'll change my mind but that's not the case today.

[muixoozie]

I'm one of those people. I don't really use jj, but want to give it another try. Think I'd feel more comfortable letting ai mess with jj because of its excellent ability to undo/redo (op log).