"As a Git power-user, you may think that you need the power of the index to commit only part of the working copy. However, Jujutsu provides commands for more directly achieving most use cases you're used to using Git's index for. For example, to create a commit from part of the changes in the working copy, you might be used to using git add -p; git commit. With Jujutsu, you'd instead use jj split to split the working-copy commit into two commits. To add more changes into the parent commit, which you might normally use git add -p; git commit --amend for, you can instead use jj squash -i to choose which changes to move into the parent commit."
Sometimes you have changes that are permanent to your repo (ie local workflow), that you always want to keep locally, but never push to the remote.
In git you would always leave the changes unstage, does that mean with jj you would always have to remove them before pushing? I haven’t found an answer on the linked page.
Side note: I really wish git had a way to mark commit has ‘no-push’ so they never leave your local copy, as an upgrade of the unstaged workflow.
> Sometimes you have changes that are permanent to your repo (ie local workflow), that you always want to keep locally, but never push to the remote.
I appreciate that there are times when this has to be in the middle of an otherwise committed file, but it's worth avoiding that if at all possible and putting the locally-changed bit in a different file because, as others have pointed out, this is error prone. It feels like the equivalent of keeping your important files in the recycle bin because it's easily accessible.
For 90% of git users 90% of the time, the staging area is an inconvenience that adds an extra step.
Ooh, that's me! As in the comment, please don't do this.
It's been a while since I worked at a place doing this, and I'm on my phone, so some details may be fuzzy or wrong, but when I was figuring all this out, I remember this SO comment being really helpful:
Basically, there's two different APIs, and neither of them are designed for ignoring config files (but both of them happen to do things that look like ignoring config files, therefore get misused).
`assume-unchanged` is an optimisation tool that tells git that it shouldn't both checking files and folders that are expensive to check but never changed. If changes do ever happen, and git realises this, then git will remove the assume-unchanged flag - because clearly it wasn't true!
`skip-worktree` is a more aggressive version of this that tells git never to touch certain files or folders at all. But now it changes do happen to those files, it's not clear what git should do. Overwriting the files would cause data loss, but ignoring the files completely means that you miss out on upstream changes. And because you're telling git that these files should never be checked, there's no good way to handle merging and conflicts.
What typically happens with both of these flags is that they work well about 80% of the time, and then cause a lot of confusion that last 20% of the time.
The alternative is almost always some sort of configuration file that is directly referenced in .gitignore, and that therefore never gets checked in. (In addition, it's often useful to have a (e.g.) config.json.default file for getting new developers up and running quickly.) Any system that needs to be configured (database connections, API URLs, IP addresses, etc) should use this configuration file. Alternatively, I find environment variables, along with .env files for local development, to be really effective, because most things can already be configured that way.
This typically takes sightly longer to set up the first time, but will work very reliably from then on.
See also these changes in git's official documentation, and the commit message that explains why it was necessary:
For a long time I have been wishing that Git had a capability of "track this file locally, but don't transfer it when pushing or cloning". Such files would be listed using the same syntax as .gitignore, but in a different file, say .gitlocal or something.
Git kind of has some "local tracking" already: if I am not mistaken, lightweight tags behave like this. It would be cool if it could track files in the same way.
Under the hood it could be done via a separate database, stored not in .git but in .gitl directory or some such. The database in .git would behave as if both .gitignore and .gitlocal contribute to ignoring, and .gitl as if .gitlocal was .gitignore in reverse: it would ignore anything not covered in .gitlocal (and also ignore what's in .gitignore). Or something along these lines.
A safer way to keep temporary changes is to create a new local-only branch with a commit of those temporary changes. Then, whenever you need them, you rebase the branch on top of your working branch.
Usually these temporary changes are to config files, so rebasing shouldn’t create conflicts if you don’t otherwise modify the config file.
An alternative is to stash only those temporary changes but I find branches to be easier to work with.
That won't work for local changes to files that are legitimately committed in the repo. Like if you need to set your local database, or your own dev hostname in config, for example.
In my experience, there is almost always a simpler way to handle these cases that involves being able to put a file in gitignore. This is one of the big advantages of environment variables, for example - they can typically be stored in a .env file (with a .env.default file checked in for new developers to copy from), and loaded dynamically in different configuration systems.
If my local setup requires me to ignore changes in checked-in files, I usually find that I need to handle configuration more cleanly.
(I did work on a project that made use of git update-index - this was a terrible mistake and caused pain every time we needed to update the config file in the repository. Please never go down this route!)
dotenv and direnv are more than enough for this task, I think, but you can make it as complicated as you care to with similar tooling that pulls secrets/config from the cloud (Doppler, parameter store, etc.)
Most places I've worked at have created tooling that more or less merges the two - sane defaults and non-sensitive values go into a `.env` file of some kind (.env, .env.development, whatever), and then a tool merges a subset of that config from a remote store which contains the stuff you don't want committed in the repo.
Usually used for connecting to a remote dev or staging instance if you can't or don't want to run the entire stack locally.
This is a smell that you should refactor how your configuration is done. What happens when there's a legit change to the config? If it's in git with `update-index`, you're going to have a hard time actually changing that file and getting the changes to the team. There are other reasons, but this is why things like 12 Factor recommend putting config in environment variables. It's made my life much easier.
https://12factor.net/config
gitignores are usually committed (they're treated like a normal file), so yes, in this context that would delete it from everyone.
There's .git/info/exclude, but that has some kinda large surprises if it excludes a tracked file and I don't recommend anyone use it unless they know what to look for and can always remember what they've excluded.
I have a $HOME/.gitignore that I use for this. (You can configure git to use that globally.) It's not a panacea, and I think other commenters are right that you should instead endeavor to organize things so that the project's own gitignore results in a sane workflow. But I think having permanently unstaged changes is worse.
So in your workflow you never "git commit -a"? So you have to always manually mark what you stage. Which is probably more work than always manually removing the changes you don't want to commit.
The ability to rewrite older commits easily in jj also looks like it would help with this usecase if you get it wrong once.
Concretely I think you would do is: Instead of staging part of your changes and then committing as in git, you would call jj split and split the commit into the part you want to keep local and the part you want to push. This way the local changes always stay in your working copy commit.
Even better, just commit the local changes once when you start. Work locally and before you push you call jj diffedit on your initial commit of the local changes and remove them. Now all the work you did since then will be automatically rebased on the edited initial commit and you can now push up. Instead of excluding your local edits every single time you just have to do it once before pushing.
I like seeing what I'm about to commit, so I always do `git commit -p` or `git add -i`. Most people where I work do the same, so I don't think this workflow is uncommon.
I never `git commit -a`, because I'm paranoid that I've done something like named a variable "foo" as I'm just working through the logic and not caring about naming.
I'll then go back through, tidy and add all my changes.
if I don't do this (actually I use magit to select each hunk to stage, but that's just add -p with a fancy interface) then I'll accidentally commit testing log lines and that sort of experimental code
I never, ever commit -a. That flag horrifies me. I want to choose, specifically, each line of code that I am going to publish.
"add -p" is great for showing you all the chunks of code you've written one-by-one and then you do "y" or "n" for whether you're adding them. Doing it like this means that you are reviewing what you've changed as a final check that you haven't left a debug line in, or forgotten part of what you meant to do. It's also a natural way of splitting up what you've done into two separate commits.
Actually, maybe I'm just a complete git, but I couldn't figure out how to `git reset HEAD~` my accidental commits, `git rebase -i HEAD~6`, format `jj log` more like `git log --color --oneline --graph --full-history` (which shows one-line-per-commit), `git checkout -p` (and obviously, `git add -p`), `git show HEAD~`, refer to N-th parents, e.g. `master~5`, and a bunch of other things...
It also feels a bit weird that new files are automatically committed without being manually approved, but I suppose this might theoretically help with some of git's annoyances.
I never do `git commit -a` precisely because I don’t want to randomly add files that I have in the repository. If I’m in a hurry, I’ll do `git add -u && git commit` to add changed files that were already in the repository. But, more typically, I use magit to stage exactly what I want to commit.
Git should really steal the only thing I like about perforce, many uncommited change lists. It should be an easy workflow change to add 'named stages' along side the default stage. That way you can just leave changes in a different stage, tracked but uncommitted.
Ugh, I was baited by myself here. I’m he scripts I use at the day git (which are the only way I tolerate hit, honestly. It does this, and also recursively merges from parent branches in commit.
We’re on an old school feature branch/master is production topology though.
Assuming in git you would keep it as untracked file in the working copy, I find jj’s automatic anonymous working copy commit better.
For once, it avoids the downsides of carrying untracked files around. Ever accidentally committed an untracked file somewhere deep in history during a long rebase?
Also I find it clearer what files are committed: every file - except if it is in .gitignore. Meanwhile in git you scourge through your untracked files before each commit to decide which ones you don’t want to add. Ever accidentally committed all files and forgot that there were untracked files you didn’t want?
