git-internals-pdf VS jj

For me the Peepcode Git Internals book was a great peek under the hood. I went from "Git has a lot of magical incantations" to "Git is pretty simple and I could probably build a version of it".

I generally recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book. The first half explains the internals of how Git works, and the second half is a command reference.

Once you get the hang of basic Git operations, you should look into how Git works under the hood. Git Internals helped me a lot on this.

❯ git log --graph --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit --all * 150c57d (HEAD -> squash-merge) Squashed commit of the following: | * 535b740 (no-squash-merge) Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge |/| | * 1836f1c (work-branch) And more | * 4b84cfe Add more |/ * 16660f8 (main) Add more * 02a154b Initial commit ❯ git cat-file -p no-squash-merge tree 58c1fb22faa444b264e98a5ae4c4ddb07be09697 parent 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c parent 1836f1c53221ae701a038bf5ae380770ea911665 author Manuel Odendahl 1653304391 -0400 committer Manuel Odendahl 1653304391 -0400 Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge * work-branch: And more Add more squash-merges-considered-harmful on  squash-merge on ☁️ ttc (us-east-1) ❯ git cat-file -p squash-merge tree 58c1fb22faa444b264e98a5ae4c4ddb07be09697 parent 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c author Manuel Odendahl 1653304543 -0400 committer Manuel Odendahl 1653304543 -0400 Squashed commit of the following: commit 1836f1c53221ae701a038bf5ae380770ea911665 Author: Manuel Odendahl Date: Mon May 23 07:11:08 2022 -0400 And more commit 4b84cfe11aa51da994448e602e1bc4cc6083d691 Author: Manuel Odendahl Date: Mon May 23 07:11:03 2022 -0400 Add more * ``` {% endraw %} You can see that save that both {% raw %}`squash-merge`{% endraw %} and {% raw %}`no-squash-merge`{% endraw %} point to the exact same tree. The only changed thing is the commit message, and the missing parent in the squash merge. To read more about the underpinnings of git, I can recommend just experimenting with the git command line, and the following resources: - [Building Git by James Coglan](https://shop.jcoglan.com/building-git/) - [Git Internals by Scott Chacon](https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf) ## But the history! But Manuel, you say, the history is so much cleaner! To which I counter that it is actually not. If you want to hide the link to the right parent of the non-squash merge (as it is called, the left parent being {% raw %}`main`{% endraw %} ), all you need to do is to hide it. If you use the command-line or a proper tool, use the option to only show first parents. If you only look at the first parent, and configure your git tool to fill in a full log history of the branch into the merge commit message (I personally use the github CLI {% raw %}`gh`{% endraw %} or some git-commit hooks to do it), the squash merge commit is identical to the non squash merge commit. A favorite {% raw %}`git log`{% endraw %} command of mine to quickly look at the history of the main branch, and create a changelog: {% raw %} ```shell > git log --pretty=format:'# %ad %H %s' --date=short --first-parent --reverse # 2022-05-23 02a154bc4f0fa9bca567676d45d136619c076a95 Initial commit # 2022-05-23 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c Add more # 2022-05-23 535b740f42e331175f3766c1374116e329a78f7e Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge

I often recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book. The first half talks about how Git works internally. The second half is a "how to use Git" tutorial. I think understanding the internals (which aren't really that complicated) can really help to demystify Git.

Conceptually, Git's not really all that complicated. I always recommend people to read the Peepcode Git Internals book (originally $9, now free): https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf/blob/master/drafts/peepcode-git.pdf

Check out this page if you haven't yet (alternatively, direct link to the PDF.) I hear it's all good, but the Understanding Git chapter is the one I'd specifically point you to.

I still very much recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book.

https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf/releases

Jujutsu is along the lines of what you describe: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

You can drop it in and work seamlessly from git repos

Pull Requests (or Merge Requests) are merged only when (1) all of the automated tests pass; and (2) enough necessary reviewers have indicated approval.

Git doesn't tell you when it's necessary to have full test coverage and manual infosec review in development cycles that produce releases, and neither do Pull Requests.

https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-19552164 ctrl-f hubflow

It looks like datasift's gitflow/hubflow docs are 404'ing, but the original nvie blog post [1] has the Git branching workflow diagrams; which the wpsharks/hubflow fork [3] of datasift/gitflow fork [2] of gitflow [1]has a copy of in the README:

[1] https://github.com/nvie/gitflow

[2] https://github.com/datasift/gitflow

[3] https://github.com/wpsharks/hubflow?tab=readme-ov-file

https://learngitbranching.js.org/ is still a great resource, and it could work on mobile devices.

The math of VCS deltas and mutable and immutable content-addressed DAG nodes identified by 2^n bits describing repo/$((2*inf)) bits ;

>> "ugit – Learn Git Internals by Building Git in Python" https://www.leshenko.net/p/ugit/

SLSA.dev is a social construct atop e.g. git, which is really a low-level purpose-built tool and Perl and now Python porcelain.

jj (jujutsu) is a git-compatible VCS CLI: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

"Ask HN: Best Git workflow for small teams" (2016)

You will probably like Jujutsu, which takes much inspiration from Mercurial: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

It isn't a 1-to-1 clone, either. But tools like revsets are there, cset evolution is "built in" to the design, etc. There is no concept of phases, we might think about adding that, but there is a concept of immutable commits (so you don't overwrite public ones.)

It also has many novel features that make it stand out. We care a lot about performance and usability. Give it a shot. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

Disclosure: I am a developer of Jujutsu. I do it in my spare time.

I have created a discussion. Thank you both

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2691

> why don't version control systems (especially ones that can change history) have undo/redo functionality out of the box?

It's true. And Jujutsu has undo functionality out of the box, too. It's not just Sapling. :) https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

Git made the only choice a popular VCS can make. History rewrites will exist, period. If you're opposed to history rewrites, then git gives you the tools to ensure the repos you control are not rewritten, and that's all it can do in a world where people have control of their own computers.

If Fossil ever becomes as popular as git, people will create software that allows history rewriting in Fossil, and that's fine. People will do what they want on their own computer, and I think it's morally wrong to try and stop that.

Another user in this thread linked to jj [0], an alternative git client that does some pretty weird things. For example, it replaces the working tree with a working commit and commits quite often. I like git and that seems weird to me, but I'm not offended, people can do what they want on their own computer and I have the tools to ensure repos under my control are not effected. That's all I can hope for.

[0]: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

I recently found out about another project called jj: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj. It takes inspiration from Pijul and others but is git-compatible.

https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

I think maybe both fossil and bitkeeper are more intuitive too.

Did you try any of those?