Comment by tcoff91
2 months ago
The UX around anonymous branches in git is not nearly as good as jj though.
Also git has no equivalent to the operation log. `jj undo` and `jj op restore` are so sweet.
2 months ago
The UX around anonymous branches in git is not nearly as good as jj though.
Also git has no equivalent to the operation log. `jj undo` and `jj op restore` are so sweet.
I can't comment on the UX of jj, but with git you literally just specify the commit, it doesn't feels tedious to me.
> Also git has no equivalent to the operation log.
For easy cases it's just git reset @{1}, but sure the oplog is a cool thing. I think it will be just added to git eventually, it can't be that hard.
You can specify a commit, yes, but how do you remember your set of unnamed commits? Once HEAD no longer points to a commit, it will not show up in `git log`.
I agree that Git could gain an operation log. I haven't thought much about it but it feels like it could be done in a backwards-compatible way. It sounds like a ton of work, though, especially if it's going to be a transition from having the current ref storage be the source of truth to making the operation log the source of truth.
The last one is always available via `git checkout -` and if you want to do more you can do `git checkout @{4}` etc. . It will also show up in `git log --reflog`. I honestly don't see the problem with naming things. Typing a chosen name is just so much more convenient than looking up the commit hash, even when you only need to type the unique prefix. When I don't want to think of a name yet, I just do "git tag a, b, c, ..."
I also tend to have the builtin GUI log equivalent (gitk) open. This has the behaviour, that no commit vanishes on refresh, even when it isn't on a branch anymore. To stop showing a commit you need to do a hard reload. This automatically puts the commit currently selected into the clipboard selection, so all you need to do is press Insert in the terminal.
> It sounds like a ton of work, though, especially if it's going to be a transition from having the current ref storage be the source of truth to making the operation log the source of truth.
I don't think that needs to be implemented like this. The only thing you need to do is recording the list of commands and program a resolver that outputs the inverse command of any given command.
3 replies →
isnt jj undo the equivalent of git reflog (+ reset/checkout)?
Mostly, yes. It also covers changes to the working copy (because jj automatically snapshots changes in the working copy). It's also much easier to use, especially when many refs were updated together. But, to be fair, it's kind of hard to update many refs at once with Git in the first place (there's `git rebase --update-refs` but not much else?), so undoing multiple ref-updates is not as relevant there.