pre-commit VS jj

Today we are going to look at how to setup Black (a python code formatter) and pre-commit (a package for handling git hooks in python) to automatically format you code on commit.

# See https://pre-commit.com for more information # See https://pre-commit.com/hooks.html for more hooks repos: - repo: https://github.com/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks rev: v3.2.0 hooks: - id: trailing-whitespace - id: end-of-file-fixer - id: check-yaml - id: check-toml - id: check-added-large-files - repo: local hooks: - id: tox lint name: tox-validation entry: pdm run tox -e test,lint language: system files: ^src\/.+py$|pyproject.toml|^tests\/.+py$ types_or: [python, toml] pass_filenames: false - id: tox docs name: tox-docs language: system entry: pdm run tox -e docs types_or: [python, rst, toml] files: ^src\/.+py$|pyproject.toml|^docs\/ pass_filenames: false - repo: https://github.com/pdm-project/pdm rev: 2.10.4 # a PDM release exposing the hook hooks: - id: pdm-lock-check - repo: https://github.com/jumanjihouse/pre-commit-hooks rev: 3.0.0 hooks: - id: markdownlint

Pre-commit hooks act as the first line of defense in maintaining code quality, seamlessly integrating with linters and code formatters. They automatically execute these tools each time a developer tries to commit code to the repository, ensuring the code adheres to the project's standards. If the hooks detect issues, the commit is paused until the issues are resolved, guaranteeing that only code meeting quality standards makes it into the repository.

Pre-commit Hooks: Pre-commit is a tool that can be set up to enforce coding rules and standards before you commit your changes to your code repository. This ensures that you can't even check in (commit) code that doesn't meet your standards. This allows a code reviewer to focus on the architecture of a change while not wasting time with trivial style nitpicks.

Ah, fair enough!

On my team we use pre-commit[0] a lot. I guess I would define the history to be something like "has this commit ever been run through our pre-commit hooks?". If you rewrite history, you'll (usually) produce commits that have not been through pre-commit (and they've therefore dodged a lot of static checks that might catch code that wasn't working, at that point in time). That gives some manner of objectivity to the "history", although it does depend on each user having their pre-commit hooks activated in their local workspace.

[0]: https://pre-commit.com/

Pre-commit is a framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks. It supports hooks for various programming languages. Using this framework, you only have to specify a list of hooks you want to run before every commit, and pre-commit handles the installation and execution of those hooks despite your project’s primary language.

You can learn more here: pre-commit.com

Note this includes support for pre-commit.

As a nice next step, you could also add mypy to check your type hints are consistent, and automate running all this via pre-commit hooks set up with… pre-commit.

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?