On that first point, there's a use case I sometimes have where stgit feels very clunky:

* I have a branch foo with a stack of patches which are the thing I'm working on, based on a master branch

* I have a separate stack of patches on a branch bar (let's say this is a feature that interacts with foo but it's not ready to upstream yet or maybe at all)

* I want to test and work on the combination of foo and bar and make changes that might need to be updates to some patch in foo, or to some patch in bar

At the moment I pick all the patches in foo onto bar in order to do the work and updates in this combined branch, squashing fixes and changes into appropriate patches. Then once I'm happy I go back to the foo branch, blow away the old patches and re-pick them off my combined branch.

This works but feels super clunky -- does jj do better here? That would be a real incentive to try it out.

For the rest, they don't sound like they're strong enough to beat "I've used stgit for 10 years and have a solid workflow with it".

And I just scanned the jj rebase docs and it looks awful, everything I moved to stgit to get away from. I do not want to think about managing a patch stack in terms of "move a bunch of revisions to a different parent". I like having a straightforward stack of patches that I can push, pop and reorder and list. Don't make me think about graphs of commits and multiple rebase suboptions and all that for something that I do all the time in my main workflow, please.

jj does do better here: its called the "mega merge" https://steveklabnik.github.io/jujutsu-tutorial/advanced/sim...

Combined with jj absorb, some people just work this way all the time, even.

> I like having a straightforward stack of patches that I can push, pop and reorder and list.

You can work this way too, what you'd want is `jj rebase` with -A, -B, and -r: r for the revision, and A and B for the before and after you want to move it too. This lets you reorder things however you want pretty straightforwardly. I tend to work in a stack of patches too, or at least, way more than I used to.

What I mean is that I do not want a single "swiss army knife" rebase command that does everything with lots of options to remember. It's fine to have that in the toolbox for the once in six months weird requirement. But for the simple cases I do every day I want simple commands that each do one thing and have memorable names.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you can have both. If there are specific rebase types that you perform regularly, you can create aliases for them and give them whatever name is meaningful to you.

For example, I frequently use `jj up` to rebase the current branch on main. Likewise, `jj pop` rebases just the current commit (popping it from its current place). I even have a `jj ppop` - better name suggestions are welcome - which does this but for the parent commit.

I suspect that the once-off effort to write your own commands would take no longer than it would take to read the documentation if the commands already existed, but with the hopeful extra benefit of giving you a better understanding of how to use rebase for those once in six months weird requirements when they may arise.

But to be clear, I'm not suggesting you must or even should put in this effort if you have something that works for you. My reply is mostly so that anyone who comes across this discussion and sees Steve's mention of -A, -B, etc isn't scared off by them. Whilst they're always there for you, you can use the power it gives you but in the form of single function commands that don't require you to think.

---

For anyone wondering, the aliases I mentioned. These can be dropped in your jj config with `jj config edit --user`.

  [aliases]
  up = ["rebase", "--skip-emptied", "-d", "trunk()"]`
  pop = ["rebase", "-r", "@", "-d", "trunk()"]
  ppop = ["rebase", "-r", "@-", "-d", "trunk()"]

Most of the time in jj you don’t even rebase manually, because it’s automatic. And the vast majority of the time, I’m using one or two flags to rebase if I am calling it. You might even need only two in this case (before only might be fine?) I just use both before and after because it’s so easy to remember the names.

Anyway you should use the tools you like, it’s all good.