> Git has lots of downsides, lots of power that forces you to work hard for things that should be easy.
Care to point one concrete example?
Care to point one concrete example?
What should that flow look like?
1. You send out a change for review. 2. You get review comments. 3. You fix the comments. 4. Repeat from #2 as many times as necessary. 5. You merge the change.
In git, how do you address review comments? You can either amend, in which case, at least on Github, you lose history while in review; or you add another commit, which essentially forces you to squash when you merge, which results in large commits.
How do you do stacked changes? How do you continue working on your feature while waiting for a change to be reviewed, and rebase the comments quickly?
With jj, it's jj edit and jj next.
What? Are you actually asking this question? I mean, what answer do you need other than a basic intro to PR tutorial from the likes of GitHub or GitLab?
But to answer your question, you continue working on your feature exactly like you've been working so far. You do not need to amend or squash. You can instead do the right thing and address PR feedback by pushing individual commits. How the PR branch is merged is a separate concern, and you are free to squash or rebase or whatever you'd like, because none of this is a Git issue.
Why do you think this is an issue with Git?
Please no. Just do a normal merge instead of destroying history. Having those as separate commits is extremely useful for those of us who actually have had to dig into the history to track down why something is the way it is.
I can either stash my changes, which requires keeping a mental model of the stash queue (what if the review comments took a while and I started working on something else?) or a "wip commit", which you need to know, and you need to know how to reset and force push if you accidentally push it.
With jj, you run `jj edit`.
You do:
git commit -m "wip"
Then, if you wish to undo the commit then:
git reset HEAD
If instead you want to update your commit with additional changes:
git commit --amend
Seriously, why are you guys advocating for replacing a tool when the problems you're actually experiencing are due to your inabilility to learn the basics of it? I mean, is jj edit any better than git commit --amend ? Does git commit --amend require more cognitive load to understand?
Your examples are laughable because most serious commands are way more complicated than that and again jj fixes that gracefully.
Again, please point out your best example that you believe proves your point.
All I see so far is shit-talking Git with abstract unsubstantiated complains to then hand-wave an alternative as the savior.
Point exactly where Git fails and what value is brought to the picture by any other alternative. Clearly Git's backend is not a issue by the way jj reuses it. So what exactly are these problems that are worth solving?
https://ohshitgit.com/ has plenty of exmaples that you're free to disregard as being shit-talking. Meanwhile, the rest of us can admit that git has some rough edges, like how git checkout does a couple of different things, depending on the flags you pass it. That's not user friendly.
What you really want to do is
git commit -anm "wip"
The -a is important because maybe you haven't staged the changes yet. The -n is important because otherwise your pre-commit hooks will run, and potentially modify your commit.
Also, what happens if some of the files were partially staged?
No. I only need to run hit commit. The rest is just silly attempts to nitpick your way to faking complexity where there is none. You don't need to pass --all because you should know and tell what changes go into the commit. You don't need or care to skip precommit hooks, because either you don't have any or you have them and you want to run them. That's it.
Also, even your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill ends up with a easier, smaller command line entry.
That's not a credible explanation. Amending a commit is somehow unintuitive and inconvenient but editing a commit is suddenly so much clearer and intuitive?