Working with lots of changes in parallel on git can be painful. You end up juggling branches and commits, and running scary rebase -i commands that can leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze. jj, an alternative to git, gets discussed a lot these days (1, 2, 3, 4) and is often pitched as a solution. While I’m very sold on the problems jj is trying to solve, the way it solves them hasn’t quite hit home with me. Every 3 months, for the last 1.5 years, I try it out for a few days, really trying to make it part of my workflow but eventually I give up and go back to git.1 That’s where git history comes in. It’s an experimental command that arrived across two releases, 2.54 (April, reword and split subcommands) and 2.55 (June, fixup subcommand). It got a flurry of attention on each release day, and then, as far as I can tell, not much community discussion since. Which is a shame, because IMO it already delivers several of the benefits people tout for jj without needing to switch your whole workflow. And the cool thing is that it’s part of the core git distribution, so you can try it without installing anything.

Working with lots of changes in parallel on git can be painful. You end up juggling branches and commits, and running scary rebase -i commands that can leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze.

jj, an alternative to git, gets discussed a lot these days (1, 2, 3, 4) and is often pitched as a solution. While I’m very sold on the problems jj is trying to solve, the way it solves them hasn’t quite hit home with me. Every 3 months, for the last 1.5 years, I try it out for a few days, really trying to make it part of my workflow but eventually I give up and go back to git.

That’s where git history comes in.

  • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
    1·
    18 hours ago

    I don’t know, the number of times I’ve needed to make two small changes in parallel is certainly non zero. The amount of times I’ve been mostly done with a feature and began a new one before a PR was totally merged is certainly non zero. Even then, some changes can make more sense if broken it into multiple commits (a moot point at most teams since squash and rebase seems to be the norm). You can keep a linear history and still have multiple commits in a branch, just commit (har har) to reading instead of merging.

    Regardless, doing commit fixups and rewords are not necessarily rare. These commands are still super useful. Bear in mind that just because something isn’t useful to your workflow, git is used by many different people with many different types of workflows.