> Even though I used stash a lot in my git days, I don't miss it at all while using jujutsu. The benefit of jj is the ease with which one makes branches (without needing to name them).
This topic is not about stashing though. It's about UX and providing first-class support for a basic use flow. If git stash was an alias for creating a branch and committing local changes to it, the point still remains: the problem with Mercurial was how it went way out of their way to argue against supporting features that users actually wanted, and supporting it as a first class feature.
And to me that's why ultimately Mercurial was bound to be forgotten while the tool that met uses' needs attained the status of de-facto standard.
The same can be said about other major features such as support for large files.
To top things off, the way that git maintainers have been actively adapting to feedback from jujutsu's users is yet again proof of why git still remains the de facto standard.
This topic is not about stashing though. It's about UX and providing first-class support for a basic use flow. If git stash was an alias for creating a branch and committing local changes to it, the point still remains: the problem with Mercurial was how it went way out of their way to argue against supporting features that users actually wanted, and supporting it as a first class feature.
And to me that's why ultimately Mercurial was bound to be forgotten while the tool that met uses' needs attained the status of de-facto standard.
The same can be said about other major features such as support for large files.
To top things off, the way that git maintainers have been actively adapting to feedback from jujutsu's users is yet again proof of why git still remains the de facto standard.