Ehh, yeah, it used to work fine. You’re right that is a much harder things to do these days

You only need a static address for hosting email or VoIP.

Email works fine with non-static IP addresses. I suspect VoIP does too.

Not sure if it’s exactly what you’re looking for - but subsonic/airsonic/etc. can do on-the-fly conversions when downloading to mobile devices. There are several mobile apps available that will cache files locally as well.

Languages you’ve never heard of also started out as personal projects BTW.

It’s a single-developer personal project. What’s there to think about?

jujutsu changes a lot of the affordances to manage changes and I understand that many people will be reluctant to use such a changed interface

You lost all credibility when you just blamed my criticism on “stockholm syndrom”. Sorry buddy.

You already have a name for every change/commit: The first line of the commit message, which you can write when you start work on it.

No - that’s a “description”. You can’t check that out. You need to jj log to get the hash of that to switch to it.

I do a lot of complicated stuff with git - what sort of workflow does this solve for you?

git rebase -i and git squash work well for combining commits and cleaning up history. I’m not finding anything about jj yet that does better? And I’m finding a lot about it that are just deal breakers (auto-commit everything, make me lookup hashes of things).

I’ve started to tinker with it. “auto commit everything” is an absolute deal-breaker for me. There’s no world in which I want every file I create to be added to source control without asking. I create lots of log files and other temp files when I work. Maybe I just fetched some .json from a service and put it in tmp.json? Maybe I created a small shell script to automate something I’m doing? I guarantee I’m going to end up pushing that shit upstream by accident at some point.

However, editing past commits and reorganizing the tree is MUCH easier in jj. It feels like the commands are more in line with what I want to do rather than having to figure out the specific set of git commands to do what I want.

I can see that - but that’s a “less frequent” task than me switching between branches. And the auto-commit-everything mixed with “you need to lookup a hash ID for each thing you’re working on” workflow is very frequent and obnoxious.

But what is amusing is that people now have a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, and plain refuse to believe there could be something better.

Wow - way to just brush away any and all criticism as “that sounds like a you problem”.

Jujutsu does not use branches much because you are focused on the nodes in the commit graph. And instead of giving every of them manually a name, they are identified with change IDs.

This is… unforgivably obnoxious. What’s the point of this? That’s like saying “Instead of giving every directory a name manually you identify them by inode.” The entire point of branches is to have a name that has meaning to me that I can use to refer to work I’m doing.

As soon as you edit a file, the changes will be included in whatever revision you’re currently editing—there’s no separate staging area in Jujutsu.

I create log files of runs, temporary helper scripts, build output, etc. in my working copy all the time. And this thing is going to “save me the burden” of having to add files manually by just adding… everything it sees.

You’ll have noticed that at no point so far did we ever think about creating a branch. That’s because Jujutsu’s relationship to branches is a bit different to Git’s—they’re just pointers that you move around so they point to whichever revision you want them to at a given time.

“Simpler” apparently means I get to do a lot more book-keeping than when I use git.

God I hate those. The worst way to distribute apps.

Stack Overflow is becoming a resource for developers that need to solve AI-related issues

Stack overflow is becoming the fall back option if AI didn’t help.

When you do that you can’t compare branches in the same working copy in different directories. You need to create remotes between the two working copies and push/pull between them.

e.g. “git log --graph …my-branch” or “git diff my-branch master” where my-branch and master are in different directories.

Well… No. You’re reading the title. Read the document.

“We all know” is the gateway to ignorance. You need to test common knowledge to see if it’s really true. Just assuming it is isn’t knowledge, it’s guessing.

Second - it’s not always true:

for the fasta benchmark, Fortran is the second most energy efficient language, but falls off 6 positions down if ordered by execution time.

Thirdly - they also did testing of memory usage to see if it was involved in energy usage.

The question I was answering was about worktrees vs. multiple clones. With multiple clones you need to setup remotes to share branches between directories. With worktrees sharing a working copy you don’t.

Yes, that’s what I said.

As somebody who rarely has a “pristine” working copy I love worktrees. I usually have a “project-master” worktree that’s a pristine checkout of the master branch so I can test builds and things without interference from uncommitted and temporary files.

It’s more space efficient - you don’t get another full copy of the repo. The worktree points back to the same .git directory.

And since it’s in the same repo you can diff between branches with other worktrees without needing to setup remotes for each of them.