[em-bee]

that doesn't make sense because when i am working on a feature, i create a branch, name the branch after the feature and then each commit has a description of what is in that commit. the feature has multiple commits, and while i carefully work out what goes in each commit i don't squash them.

so with jj i could use a bookmark, ok, but having to manually update that bookmark feels wrong.

[igor47]

When I'm working in git, I always start work by creating a new branch with a name. Sometimes the branch becomes something different as I work and then I might rename it or more often just keep a stale name around. But in git commit descriptions come later.

In jj, it's the opposite. I start with a change, and I often describe it right away. Branches (bookmarks) come at the end.

You could, in jj, tag a new empty change with a bookmark as soon as you create it. You don't have to advance the bookmark -- that the first change in a sequence of changes is tagged with a bookmark is probably as much information as you need?

[em-bee]

that the first change in a sequence of changes is tagged with a bookmark is probably as much information as you need?

i was actually wondering about that. it might. i'll have to see it in action...