While that's a reasonable position in some ways I certainly don't get the impression that I should assume Pijul is not up to the most fundamental guarantee of an SCM: not losing my code. A page telling me why I should use Pijul probably should explain that I shouldn't use it for anything that matters in the most trivial of ways and yours doesn't.

https://pijul.org/manual/why_pijul.html

> the most fundamental guarantee of an SCM: not losing my code.

Yeah. It's not terribly useful, even as a research VCS if i end up with corrupted repositories.

Last I tried it (in November), repositories got corrupted.[0]

I wish Carnix would just use Git instead, but I get why that's not happening.

[0]: https://nest.pijul.com/pmeunier/carnix/discussions/39

This is a network error, not a corruption error. I agree the CLI is not yet stable.

I guess it was caused by a network error, but it still ended up with the repository in a corrupt state (with the patches "existing" but invisible).