[steeleduncan]

In princple JJ has non-Git backends, but the only backend they state as being production ready is the Git backend. JJ without the Git interop is more a concept than a reality right now.

I love JJ, and the mental model of source control it presents, and I will continue to use it. However, still needing to "drop down" to Git every now and again to get something done makes it feel very much like a convenient wrapper on top of Git rather than a new SCM.

If Git adds commands to support the JJ workflow, it would be hard to justify having JJ installed any more.

[klibertp]

The backend itself is fine, it's just trying to use JJ as a Git frontend for projects developed on Github (among 20 other devs using git, where each of them uses git through different interface and/or in different style) that's currently not ideal :(

> However, still needing to "drop down" to Git every now and again to get something done makes it feel very much like a convenient wrapper on top of Git rather than a new SCM.

Yeah, but I think that's fine. Git is a solid foundation; it's not wrong to try to build on it initially. It gets you a usable implementation faster. It is a pain point, though.

> If Git adds commands to support the JJ workflow, it would be hard to justify having JJ installed any more.

Is that a danger? I don't see Git as a fast-moving target. And among all the "convenient wrappers on top of Git", JJ seems to have the design least tied to Git, so I think it has the highest chance of breaking out of the Git dependency in the future.