awesome-structure-editors VS git-imerge

Yes, I think that we can do better than plain text as the source of truth, and thus git would probably need to change.

There's work around a bunch of languages that are not based on text, some have their own editor or a tool to manage a canonical representation in text for you that would make them friendlier to git.

  - https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors/blob/main/README.md

There's many more akin projects listed in https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors/blob/ma...

I can't wait fast enough for these ideas to reshape how we deal with programs and build stuff.

Haskell seems to be pretty big. For example in this list of projects it appears to be the second most popular language (after TypeScript) :)

See https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors

You could submit a pull request to get it added to awesome-structure-editors by /u/yairchu

It would be interesting to have such a general project go somewhere.

While in principle structural editing sounds like an incredible advance, there are 'good enough' advantages to plain-text tools that make it a much more practical solution. The other issue is of course integration with existing tooling, which you either skip entirely or compromise on the design.

What I feel is missing, between the description of "old, bad state of things" and "utopian vision" is a review of some of the projects that already tried to achieve this ideal state. It turns out there are a number of them, and most of them failed to achieve any traction or impact [0].

The rants are very long, so I skimmed quickly the one about git; I understand the complaints, although git is only bringing me joy and no pain --interactive rebase, absorb and a few aliases made it a breeze. But in a similar fashion there are projects trying to solve its fundamental issues, like pijul(.org); what are they missing?

[0] https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors/blob/ma...

Some good ones pops up in Projectional Programming [1] once in a while. The pinned thread links to the structure-editors github list [2] too.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/nosyntax/

[2] https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors

Afaik, there's currently no official way to pause/stash a rebase/merge-in-progress. (There is git-imerge which supports incremental merges/rebases (basically split a big merge into smaller ones), but I never used it and think you'll need to use it from the start of a merge/rebase.)

Try git imerge.

If the merge is large in the number of commits involved git imerge may be useful to you. It breaks down one big merge into many smaller merges, essentially merging one new commit from each branch, one at a time. The advantage being that you only ever need to consider the conflict between two individual commits at a time.

The repo for it is https://github.com/mhagger/git-imerge and the blog post / instructions is at https://wilsonmar.github.io/git-imerge/

Similar ideas have been discussed before in Git, but I don't think anyone has acted on them much. Michael Haggerty's git-imerge tries to make conflicts shareable, but I think it was more of a side-effect of the original goal of optimizing rebase/merge and auto-reducing conflicts to their minimal representation. I'm very curious how conflicts are represented in Jujutsu so I can better understand this power. I'm curious about how conflicts in conflict-resolution commits are handled and other such magic.

That gist seems like a simplified version of https://github.com/mhagger/git-imerge, so check that out if you haven't. (I haven't looked at git-imerge in a long time, so I should read about it again myself.)