Readit NewsA snippet from the intro:
"At the time of writing, most Jujutsu tutorials are targeted at experienced Git users, teaching them how to transfer their existing Git skills over to Jujutsu. This blog post is my attempt to fill the void of beginner learning material for Jujutsu."
> Am I the only one bad with memorizing SHAs when reading?
I haven't ever needed to memorize a SHA or change ID with jj. What are you referring to?
> Also, does it work with other people? Would it work in repo with 5 contributors? 20? 500?
I have used jj for two years on teams without anyone else needing to be aware. Other teammates that I've convinced to give it a shot have switched, and we all work together happily alongside the git users. If anything, it's easier to work with others when they switch to jj because you no longer have to worry about rewriting history of branches that have been pushed. If you have a branch that multiple people are working on, that's bad form in git but it's just another day with jujutsu.
Is there a good explanation of Jujutsu without referring to git? May be with some pictures? Am I the only one bad with memorizing SHAs when reading? Also, does it work with other people? Would it work in repo with 5 contributors? 20? 500?
EDIT: I am looking for tutorials with explanation on how JJ works, preferably without referring to Git, and even more preferably with some visual explanations, which, there are plenty for Git. It seems I am not very good in reading text trees. It is my issue, not yours, but may be you know something which would help.
Fun with uv and PEP 723
640 points | 227 comments
But focusing on the 'glass' component is very reductive in my opinion, and shallow. It is much more about overall layout overhaul. I, for one, think it feels much more easy and modern, a welcome upgrade. I am a programmer, not a designer. Functionally it feels better for me.
Few reasons.
1. It's 100$ a year, which isn't pocket change when it's making you no revenue.
2. Apple likes to randomly deny developer accounts.
3. They have no issue with outright rejecting apps with vague reasoning.
4. Plenty of high quality raw editing apps already exist for OSX.
If someone really wants to use it on OSX you've provided clear instructions.
1. 100$ is a pocket change for many people. Depending where you live. I think it is enough of a barrier to force a thoughtful action. Also, to compare, cheapest certificates for signing windows software are like 450$/year. Microsoft has a hosted service now for $15/year, but that is still in beta. Both of those options are significantly more expensive than 99$/year Apple charges.
2. No, Apple does not deny randomly access to developer accounts. Also, this is quite besides the poin.
3. Code Signing has absolutely nothing to do with submitting your app to app store, or anything Apple has to approve of. Like, why even write about something you have no idea about?
4. True. Not sure how it is relevant.
Not everyone is into nostalgia. I don't try to take away LaTeX or vim from anyone, it just not for everyone.
Author can submit this to the AppStore.