So this is as an opinion I had when I heard about jj too. But the thing is, jj supports this workflow very well, and in fact better than git, because the stash/index is just a normal commit, not a separate feature.
In fact, the most popular jj workflow is closer to the git add -p workflow than it is git commit -a. I’d argue more jj developers work this way than git developers do in git, even.
Not exactly, but sorta. You don't need to write a description for a commit, and it doesn't need to be on a branch, and things are auto-committed. So if I'm working on something, and then I "jj new" to start something else somewhere else, I can trivially come back to what I was doing. You're right that's a stash under another name: a commit. But the key is, because it's not a special separate thing from a commit, I can use any command that works on commits to work on my stash. We've unified two things into one thing. And that's useful.
So a list somewhere else, which commits are considered temporary. It's a todo list for commits. Does JJ have that?
> We've unified two things into one thing.
A stash in Git is also just two commits. So no you just removed a feature on top of that. That feature might not be to your taste, or even outright confusing, but you did remove it.
I am saying a feature was removed, yes. But what I'm saying is, the things you use that feature for can still be accomplished. It's just not accomplished via a dedicated feature, but as an effect of how other features work.
Yeah and I am saying that you could do that as well with Git. Git just also does have that feature and a lot of users like to use that, but you don't need to.
git and jj are functionally equivalent in this respect, yes, but it's all easier in jj. It all becomes one concept and one command set, instead of three different ones.
The git features of stashing/staging are removed, but they're superfluous given how jj works. You don't need or want them, and keeping them around would only give people two ways to do the same things.
for, while and goto achieve the same and are the same thing under the hood, yet they convey different semantic and you choose between them for different tasks, because they are more suited for different things.
stashes and commits achieve the same and are the same thing under the hood (both are commits), yet they convey different semantic and I choose between them for different tasks, because they are more suited for different things.
All in software is about different abstractions, that all fundamentally do the same thing.
> but it's all easier in jj
You can literally use commits instead of stashes in Git and guess what: it's the same as treating any other commit. Here JJ and Git are the same. You can also do stashes in Git, when you want temporary commits that are put into a "todo" list.
These are all good points, and if it fits how you think about the problem, git is clearly right for you.
I think for me, the unification of concepts, and simplification of DX, wins out. I like being able to use the same set of commands for all three. I didn't miss staging or stashes at all when I switched.
In fact, the most popular jj workflow is closer to the git add -p workflow than it is git commit -a. I’d argue more jj developers work this way than git developers do in git, even.