42
Introduction - Steve's Tutorial on Jujutsu, an alternative front-end to git
(steveklabnik.github.io)
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
42 points (87.5% liked)
Linux
56510 readers
671 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah you can undo undo and also resurrect undone states.
If the readability of the commit history really does not matter to you - for exsmple, nobody needs to read this code again - it's possible that jj does not give you enough advantage. Everyone works different.
I mean... It does and I will use git to manage commit histories as necessary. I don't see
jjas solving that problem or even making it easier. Doing a single squash-commit or arebase -iwhen I merge a branch is relatively trivial.And from what I can tell it's much easier to do a
git pull upstream masterthan to dojj new skdfsld dskfjassince you'll likely have to lookup those hashes? I mean I wouldn't remember them.One takes them from the last commit log and uses the first few letters. Steve Klabnik shows how they are used in practice. It makes no sense to repeat it here.
So - it's not the length of the random garbage that is the issue it's the fact that it's random garbage that I have no chance of remembering after 5 seconds and switching between branches. All my branches are instead random hashes that I'll need to lookup or remember.
I've read through the blog. It sounds like they've taken the minor inconvenience of doing a
git merge --squashand distributed that pain across every-single-commit you're ever going to make instead. All to get "tidy commits" which were possible before anyway.I was actually rather interested in the idea of jj being something that made history-rewriting easier (e.g. for removing bad commits with passwords and the like). But the fact that it almost completely throws out the entire concept of working on named branches (yes you can have them - but "One interesting thing about branches in jj that's different than branches in git is that branches do not automatically move." - genius) is just ridiculous. And to claim that it's now simpler just seems like gaslighting.
So you think that git has already a perfect user interface?
Don't be stupid.