However, the conflict algebra does remove many common uses of rerere. See https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/issues/175#issuecomment-1079831... for a longer discussion.

Correct me I'm I'm wrong but I think were talking about using `git reset HEAD^` for splitting a commit. That will move the current branch backwards one step. With `--mixed`, it will also move the index back one step, so the index is empty (relative to HEAD) and the working copy has the combination of changes that were in the previous HEAD commit and the working copy (relative to the previous HEAD). I think that's more like squashing than splitting because we have fewer "things" after: we have one commit fewer (the previous HEAD commit may of course still be reachable from another branch, in which case we still have the same number of "things" afterwards). It's similar with `--soft` and `--hard`, except that the old changes end up in a different "thing".

At a less technical level, the point of splitting a commit is to end up with some of the changes from one commit in a new commit and the rest of the changes in another commit. That's what meant when I said "`git reset` by itself doesn't split a commit", because you need to do something like this:

  git reset HEAD^
  git add -p
  git commit -C HEAD@{1}

Just that additional steps are needed.

For example, if you wanted to split the HEAD commit but you had already started working on a new commit so have some changes in the working copy, then you might instead have to do something like this:

  git commit -m tmp
  git rebase -i HEAD^^ # Use the "edit" action for the first commit
  git add -p
  git commit -m first
  git rebase --continue
  git reset HEAD^

(Take my Git commands with a grain of salt because I haven't used Git in 10 years.)

`git reset` by itself doesn't split a commit AFAIK. You need to then `git add -p` and `git commit` (and recover the commit message from the old commit). And what happens if you had other changes in the working copy first? Or if you want to split a commit that's not at HEAD?

I've heard this a few times. But from what I've seen, it seems like often it's the Git enthusiasts who seem to be unfamiliar with jj. I haven't heard from anyone who used jj for a few months and knew it well and then switched to Git.

``` A---B---C main \ D---E---F feature1 \ \---G---H feature2 \ \---I---J feature3 ```

(sorry about the formatting here. I guess you'll have to copy & paste it to read it)

What I'm saying is that if I want to fix something in D, I do `jj new D` to create a new commit on top of D. Then I make the fix, run tests, etc., and then I run `jj squash` to amend the changes into D. The descendant commits (E through J) then get automatically rebased and the feature bookmarks/branches get updated.

I didn't follow what you about it other changes needed for updating the ancestor. Can you explain in the context of this example?

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.

Yes, it's only meant for local branches. When I used Git, I had a script for rebasing dependent branches. I remember that a coworker had written a similar script.

I think jj is generally more useful for people like me who often have lots of independent and dependent work in progress. If you mostly just have a one review at a time, there's much less benefit. Perhaps I would say that `jj undo` might be the most useful feature for users with simpler development (yes, I know about the reflog, but see the video I linked to in the other message).

> I don't think making another tool entirely is the right solution.

I considered making the changes to Git but the changes I wanted to make would make the UX so different that it would basically mean introducing a whole parallel command set to Git. I figured it would take ages to get Git to that state, if I could sell the ideas to the Git community at all. By the way, the video above talks about an proposed `git history` series of commands inspired by Jujutsu (also see https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250819-b4-pks-history-builtin-...).

I agree. That's why jj uses practically the same model. That's how Git can quite easily be used as a backend.

> I just looked at its FAQ, and saw a bunch of nonsensical new terms as well.

Like what? Perhaps we can improve it.

Is the scenario that you make many changes in the working copy and then run `git add -p` a few times until you're happy with what's staged and then you `git commit`? With jj, you would run `jj split` instead of the first `git add -p` and then `jj squash -i` instead of the subsequent ones. There's no need to do anything instead of `git commit`, assuming you gave the first commit a good description when you ran `jj split`. This scenario seems similarly complex with Git and jj. Did you have a different scenario in mind or do you disagree that the complexity is similar between the tools in this scenario? Maybe I'm missing some part of it, like unstaging some of the changes?

Not sure that they had in mind but you can do `jj squash --from :: --destination 'root()' `. That will take the changes to the unwanted file from all those commits and move them into a new commit based on the root commit (the root commit is virtual commit that's the ancestor of every other commit).

Perhaps, but I don't think that's true for me (or for Steve). I've contributed something like 90 patches to Git itself (mostly to the rebase code). To be fair, that was a while ago.

My impression is actually that many people who disagree with the sentiment that jj is much easier to use seem to have not read its manual :) Some of them seem to have not even tried it. So, the way it looks to me, it's usually the people who argue for jj who have a better understanding of the differences between the two tools.

Have you tried jj yourself and/or have you read some of the documentation?