zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. 171862+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-06 17:33:16
I think the issue that wakawaka28 has and I also have is, that I don't think we should have lots of "wizards" for specific high-level operations users want to do. Then we will only end up with hundreds of commands, that all do slightly the same. Also it will train (new) users to complain about adding yet another command to do what they want, instead of letting them learn how to combine the already existing commands.

What we should do instead is provide a bunch of primitives, that as high-level are as possible so to not end up with duplicate commands, which is what git does currently. `git history` as a name is somewhat pointless, since the whole point of git is to produce and modify the history. In that sense `git history` already exists, it is called `git`.

I think the issue newbies have is not that git commands are hard per se, but that they don't think in terms of modifying the graph yet, or that they don't know which primitives are available.

replies(1): >>stevek+xe
2. stevek+xe[view] [source] 2025-12-06 19:26:58
>>171862+(OP)
For what it's worth, I mostly see jj as being to git what you describe in your first few paragraphs. That's why I like it so much.
[go to top]