Hacker News Reader

Comment by dullcrisp | Hacker News Reader

> I did not like it at all.

Because it left you fewer opportunities to experience the ecstasy of typing git commands into a terminal? Or because it didn't work so well?

View on HN

Because it interferes with my workflow. If there are non-committed changes when I want to do something else, they do represent actions I want to do. I don't just have random uncommitted changes there. Setting --autosquash as default results in my finding out I forgot something later.

I believe this to be the same with the index, that is praised as unnecessary and "overcomed" in JJ.

I love the index, and often have "uncommitted" stuff lying around. jj makes doing this easier because you represent the index as an unnamed commit, and everything just works, as opposed to needing to manage the index vs committed changes with separate tools.

The absence of "needing to manage the index" is what breaks my workflow.

What I mean is, you manage the index with the same commands that you manage commits with. The emphasis is on "with separate tools" not "manage the index".

I am super curious as to what you mean specifically, but I also know that getting into details can be annoying, so if you have some specifics I'd love to hear more about them. I loved git's index so this isn't coming from a place of "the index sucks and you shouldn't care about it" it's "I think jj executes the index better than git does actually". But also if you don't, that's fine by me too, if you like a tool you should continue to use it.

(I never set autosquash either)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com