atzanteol @ atzanteol @sh.itjust.works

Posts

6

Comments

4,029

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your computer is more powerful than machines that sent humans to the moon, yet it struggles to run a web browser and video editor simultaneously.

No, it doesn't. You know what would though? My old Pentium 120mhz with 16MiB of RAM.

I mean... Of course Hamas would say that.

Same court that decided Biden exceeded his authority by asking the department of education to forgive loans.

😑

Looking at the table above AI gpus are a pure scam

How much more power are your gaming GPUs going to use? How much more space will they use? How much more heat will you need to dissipate?

I meant the "waiting too late to start evacuating children" being the wrong call.

One takes them from the last commit log and uses the first few letters

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 --squash and 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.

Don't be stupid.

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 jj as solving that problem or even making it easier. Doing a single squash-commit or a rebase -i when I merge a branch is relatively trivial.

And from what I can tell it's much easier to do a git pull upstream master than to do jj new skdfsld dskfjas since you'll likely have to lookup those hashes? I mean I wouldn't remember them.

Did op know one of their options was to not post a stupid question?

People are heuristic - we predict the future from our past experiences. They have been on the river for 40 years and had a lot of experience telling them that "this will be like other times."

Maybe there was even a time where it was far less than what NOAA predicted.

This is why scientific literacy and critical thinking skills are important. One of the deadliest phrases is "in my experience".

Dick Eastland died trying to rescue some of the youngest girls.

Imagine realizing you made the wrong call by hearing the screams of children.

Hey

<your community here>

<thing>

<hundreds of contradictory and useless responses>

Technically true - but it looks like jj does a lot of history re-writing which would require a lot of care to be taken when working on a shared codebase.

The page on remotes has some cautions in it.

We need the --allow-backwards flag to set the trunk branch to the previous commit because it is a dangerous operation: if we had pushed trunk, things would get weird when we try and push now. We've kept it all local, so there's no issues with doing this.

Hrm... It looks interesting but it seems too dedicated to crafting "the perfect commit".

Changing our description changed the commit ID! This is why we have both IDs: the change ID has not changed, but the commit ID has. This allows us to evolve our commit over time, but still have a stable way to refer to all versions of it.

I don't want to "evolve a commit" - I want to capture my changes over time. If I decide later that I want to prepare the commit for merging I will.

I hate it because it's different - but even trying to give it a "benefit of the doubt" I really can't see this as better. It's not like it's difficult to create a "tidy" commit with git as is.

And as far as "easier to use goes"... well... Here's how you get a list of anonymous branches

    
jj log -r 'heads(all())'


  

And since they eschew branches with names you get to memorize hash strings instead of branch names that describe the thing you were doing?

    
jj new pzoqtwuv yykpmnuq -m "merge better documentation"
# vs. 
git merge my_branch_Name


  

I'm unconvinced. Though jj undo looks neat (and also crazy dangerous unless you can undo an undo?).

What a burn - looks like you win the conversation. 🤣

Does the dickish attitude come with the package or is it extra?

It's free, just for you.

Your question was bad and you got bad answers. What did you expect?

Throw a dart, pick a distro. My God these "help me pick a distro" posts are irritating. You're not special. Your usecase is not special. Distros are "similar but different".

What do you use at work? Use that one.

Ugh. I'd rather you be arguing against my side that for it then.

You may be able to dispute that. I had a similar requirement, and it turns out the maps they based their decisions on were very out of date. I live on a hill that even a 30 foot swell wouldn't touch. It took a while,and we had to work with the state emergency agency, but we were able to remove the requirement.

It's not a "burn" - it was the casus belli given for Nazi territorial expansion.