undefined

points

[-]

That avoids the problem for the specific workflow of checking out an old revision (and it was what I was describing with checking out a new branch off the old commit and adding a blank commit to that branch), but another way this design bites me: At work I am constantly jumping around numerous repos because I might be working on repo <foo> but then someone on my team will ask for help with repo <bar>. So I'll turn on screen sharing, open up repo <bar> and I'll type out psuedo-code into <bar> as I'm explaining things to them.

So if the last thing I did on <bar> was finish some work by making a new commit, then writing some changes, and then giving it a commit message with `jj desc`, then I am now polluting that commit with the unrelated explanatory psuedo-code. So when switching to a repo I'm not actively working in, I need to defensively remember to check the current `jj status` before typing in any files to make sure I am on an empty commit. With git, I can jump around repos and make explanatory edits willy-nilly, confident that my changes are distinct from real meaningful commits.

I guess one way to describe it is: we want to make it easy to make good commits and hard to make bad commits. jj seems to be prioritizing the former to the detriment of the latter. My personality prioritizes rigorous safety / lack of surprises.

by kps8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you have somehow picked up an overcomplicated workflow, and this is case is actually something that `jj` is much better at.

If I'm in the middle of working on <foo> and someone asks about <bar>: `jj new <bar>`. When I'm done (and do whatever I want with those new changes in <bar>, including deferring deciding what to do), I just `jj edit <foo>` and I'm back exactly where I left off. It's a bit like `git stash` without having to remember to stash in advance, and using regular commit navigation rather than being bolted on the side.

by MrJohz5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think the right intuition to have with jj is that `jj st` should show an empty change unless you are actively working on something. `jj commit`, as mentioned below, is a good example of this - it automatically creates a new change and checks it out. The "squash flow" also does this well - you use the branch tip as a staging area and squash work into other changes on the branch as you go along. Either way, once the work is finished, there's an empty change at the tip of the branch.

This is also supported by jj implicitly - whenever you check out a different commit, if the change you were on is empty, has no description, and is the tip of a branch, it's automatically deleted to clean things up for you.

by icorbrey9 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Fwiw I generally solve this by using `jj commit` instead of `jj desc` unless I'm specifically targeting something that isn't my working copy. Technically it violates the "we want commands to be orthogonal" guideline we use to write Jujutsu (otherwise this would indeed be `jj desc; jj new`) but as a habit it's never let me down

by tom_alexander9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Ah, thanks! That's a command I haven't learned yet, so I'll have to check it out. I learned jj from the tutorial that was posted and I don't think it covered `jj commit` at all.

by steveklabnik9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I didn't cover it for various reasons, but I think it's good to teach now that I've had more time to consider this sort of thing, so the next iteration will likely start by beginning with jj commit.

by saghm8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In a pure `jj` model, commit might not even be necessary as it's own subcommand (since you could easily define an alias for `desc` followed by `new`). We're still living in a world where most people who would consider adopting `jj` are git users currently, so I wonder if starting with `commit` and then following it up with an explanation of "here's how you can change the commit message without needing to make a new commit" and "here's how you can make a new commit without changing the name of the current one" would end up fitting people's expectations better.

by steveklabnik7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, I do think that the latter is correct now.

I tend to learn "bottom-up", so I like the new + describe as a way of learning, but people want to jump in and get going with tools, so commit fits that expectation better.

by saghm2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm the same way. I've learned over the years that this ends up being somewhat uncommon though, and one of the harder but more rewarding parts of helping people learn is figuring out where they're coming from and meeting them there. (I'm positive this is something you've been well aware of for a while though, probably longer than me!)

by ersatz-matty9 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

From your "polluted" snapshot, you can run `jj commit -i` and use the TUI to select only what you want.

by hacker1619 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Just like you can run `git add -p`

by baq9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]