To me, now having two different commands which I need to distinguish means actually some mental overhead. I need to think about, is this really ready now, or only partially ready? Often I don't really know. I keep rebasing and editing my history of commits until I think they are in a good shape, and then I publish (make a PR).
grace promote seems easy to distinguish, if this is only intended for merges. Although I also don't see why it is such a problem to consider this also as a type of commit. Also, how are conflicts handled there? In Git, a commit always comes with a well defined state of the file tree, with one, or multiple parent commits (or also zero for the initial).
> Every save is uploaded, automatically
How does this handle files which are not yet tracked? Or all new files are automatically added? With Git, I always check first what files are added before I commit some new directory, to make sure I don't add files which don't belong into Git, like generated binaries or so.
> You can fix [the merge conflict] while you're in flow, and skip the conflict later.
To me, suddenly getting a merge conflict because of the background auto-rebase while working on some code sounds more like a distraction to get me out of the flow?
> Personal branches, not forks
So, you mean it's a centralized system? But does that mean, forks are not possible? Or when you fork, there are no good ways to work together anymore, e.g. merging branches from other forks?
> Grace will have a native GUI app for Windows, Mac, Android, and iOS. (And probably Linux.)
It sounds like Linux is not a priority now? This will turn off a lot of developers. I think for a new version control system, it makes more sense to have Linux as a priority, and Windows etc can come later.