ok/jj
1
0
Fork 0
forked from mirrors/jj
Code Pull requests Activity

docs: try to clarify that jj doesn't need a staging area

Browse source 
Wol on lwn.net pointed out that our current description in the Git
Comparison doc for why there is no staging area can be interpreted as
saying that it's because it simplifies the CLI. It took me a while to
see that interpretation, but it makes sense to me now. This patch
tries to clarify that we have better tools than the staging area for
manipulating commits.
This commit is contained in:
Martin von Zweigbergk 2024-01-20 13:44:24 -08:00 committed by Martin von Zweigbergk
parent 0bc1341fd0
commit 63c4de3cf7
1 changed files with 5 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

9
docs/git-comparison.md
View file

@ -17,10 +17,11 @@ various use cases.
* **The working copy is automatically committed.** That results in a simpler and
more consistent CLI because the working copy is now treated like any other
commit. [Details](working-copy.md).
* **There's no index (staging area).** That also results in a simpler
CLI for similar reasons. The index is very similar to an intermediate commit
between `HEAD` and the working copy, so workflows that depend on it can be
modeled using proper commits instead. [Details](#the-index).
* **There's no index (staging area).** Because the working copy is automatically
committed, an index-like concept doesn't make sense. The index is very similar
to an intermediate commit between `HEAD` and the working copy, so workflows
that depend on it can be modeled using proper commits instead. Jujutsu has
excellent support for moving changes between commits. [Details](#the-index).
* **No need for branch names (but they are supported).** Git lets you check out
a commit without attaching a branch. It calls this state "detached HEAD". This
is the normal state in Jujutsu (there's actually no way -- yet, at least -- to