another-file

sdkfjkls
asdkfjaslkd
fjaskldfj
asdkfjaslkdfasdkfjaskdlf
asdkfjaslkdjaskldfjaskldfja
sdkfjklsasdf
asdkfjaslkdfadfasd
faskldjfaslkdfj
askldfjasdkfjaskdlf



Is there a better way to deal with git staging. Basically I want to encapsulate this idea.

Promotion of feature changes: each interaction with an agent may chagne something, so I want something like, auto-tiers

Accepted code - code I hav reviewed that I have read every line and am happy with
Partial code - code that I have some confidence yet but not willing to fully accept
Staged changes - some mess of code that I have not even read yet, but Like, it sorta works? Compiles, etc
Unstaged chagnes - the last run of an agents output, I might toss it, might staged it, etd

bbb

Basically, staged/unstaged is too coarse. I want to control exactly like what tier to put it under.

Thought for a few seconds
Yes. Treat this as a promotion pipeline, not just Git’s built-in staged/unstaged split.

Git only gives you:

working tree

index

commit history

That is too low-resolution for the policy you want. The fix is to add your own semantic layers on top.

aaa

The model
What you want is roughly:

Untrusted
Latest agent output. May compile, may not. Disposable.

Candidate
Seems directionally right. Maybe tested or compiles. Not fully reviewed.

Reviewed
You have read it carefully and mostly accept it.

Accepted
Fully promoted. This is the version you are willing to preserve as “good”.

That is a real workflow. Git can support it, but not with git add alone.

Best practical way
Use commits as promotion checkpoints, not the staging area.

Think of:

working tree = scratch / untrusted

index = temporary selection tool only

commits = your actual tiers

For example:

WIP(agent): latest output, unreviewed

candidate: compiles, basic smoke passed

reviewed: inspected, needs final polish

accepted: feature is blessed

Now your tiers are not hidden in the index. They are durable, searchable, diffable, and movable.

This is much better than trying to make the Git index carry all the meaning.

Why staging alone breaks down
Because git add is only really answering:

“Should this exact content be included in the next commit?”

It is not good at expressing:

I have not read this

I skimmed this

I trust this but only provisionally

this is accepted but adjacent files are not

this was agent-made and needs human promotion

Those are workflow states, not file-content states.

A better structure
Option A: Commit-based promotion on one branch
This is the simplest good system.

Use a branch per feature, and commits represent promotion:

agent/wip: raw agent pass

agent/wip: follow-up pass

candidate: compiles

candidate: tests green

reviewed: human reviewed core logic

accepted: finalize feature

Then you can diff between tiers:

accepted vs reviewed

reviewed vs candidate

candidate vs latest agent mess

This gives you history and clean rollback.

Option B: Patch queue / stack per promotion level
Even better if you want explicit layering.

For a feature branch:

base branch = known-good

commit stack above it:

raw agent changes

selected candidate changes

reviewed promotions

accepted final layer

This works especially well with stacked commits / Sapling / Graphite-like mental model.

Instead of “what is staged?”, you ask:

which commits have been promoted to which tier?

That is much closer to what you want.

Option C: Separate branches for tiers
Possible, but usually heavier:

feature/foo-untrusted

feature/foo-candidate

feature/foo-reviewed

feature/foo-accepted

This is explicit, but annoying fast. Good for large risky work, bad as a daily default.

My recommendation
Use this:

Yessir

working tree = raw current agent run

small WIP commits = preserved checkpoints

commit message prefixes = promotion state

interactive staging only to carve good hunks out of the mess

worktrees when you want to compare or stabilize accepted code separately

So your real flow becomes:

Agent writes into working tree

You either discard or snapshot it as agent/wip

Promote selected hunks into candidate commit

After reading deeply, amend/promote into reviewed

Squash/finalize into accepted

Concrete mapping
Your categories map cleanly to this:

Unstaged changes
Rename mentally to:
scratch / incoming agent output

This is volatile. No trust implied.

Staged changes
Stop treating this as a trust tier.
Treat it as:
selection buffer for the next promotion

The index is just a temporary holding area.

Partial code
Represent this as a real commit:
candidate: ...

That means:

maybe compiles

maybe passes smoke tests

not fully audited

Accepted code
Represent this as:
accepted: ...

That means:

you read every line you care about

semantics make sense

tests or invariants are good enough

you would be okay keeping this

The key insight
You do not want more staging states inside Git.

You want a promotion protocol layered on top of Git.

Git’s primitives are:

working tree

index

commit

branch

Your workflow primitives should be:

untrusted

candidate

reviewed

accepted

Map your workflow onto commits and branches, not onto index state alone.

The minimal version
A very workable lightweight system:

git status dirty working tree = untrusted

git commit -m "wip(agent): raw output" = preserved but untrusted

git commit -m "candidate: compiles" = partial confidence

git commit -m "reviewed: audited core path" = human-reviewed

git commit -m "accepted: finalize feature" = blessed

That alone gets you 80% there.

The more advanced version
Use directories/metadata/automation to enforce promotion.

For example, a small script could:

snapshot current diff as agent/wip

run checks

tag commit as candidate

open review diff against last accepted point

mark accepted after explicit human confirmation

You could even keep Git notes or commit trailers like:

Promotion: candidate
Reviewed-By-Human: no
Compiles: yes
Tests: smoke
Agent-Generated: yes
Then promotion becomes queryable.

Strong opinion
Do not overload git add with semantic trust.

The staging area is too ephemeral and too binary.

Use:

index for hunk selection

commits for promotion state

branch/worktree boundaries for isolation

That is the durable solution.

A clean mental model
Think of it like this:

working tree = laboratory bench

index = tray where you assemble the next sample

WIP commit = bagged specimen

candidate/reviewed/accepted commits = quality levels in inventory

You are trying to run a quality system. The index is not a quality system.

If you want this to feel really good
The nicest UX would be a tiny wrapper, something like:

promote scratch -> wip

promote wip -> candidate

promote candidate -> reviewed

promote reviewed -> accepted

Under the hood it could just make commits with metadata and maybe tags or branches.

That would match your actual intent much better than raw Git commands.

Bottom line
Yes, there is a better way:

Do not treat staged/unstaged as your trust model. Treat them as mechanics. Build your trust model out of promotion commits.

A good default stack is:

working tree = untrusted agent output

WIP commit = preserved snapshot

candidate commit = seems okay

reviewed commit = human inspected

accepted commit = blessed

If you want, I can design a concrete CLI workflow for this, with exact commands or a small wrapper script.


im more looking for something that might even like, replace gitworkflow. 

I see some tools now have like "rounds" or something, where like each change is mini-staged, etc, and you can kinda undo / revert to any history / etc

I’m checking current tools that treat changes as patch stacks or “rounds” rather than plain staged/unstaged, and I’ll map them against the workflow you described.

There are a few real contenders here. Git can be bent into this shape, but some newer tools are closer to “every change is its own promotable unit.”

Thought for 16s
Yes. What you are describing is much closer to change-based or stack-based version control than classic Git staging.

The two strongest fits are:

1. Jujutsu (jj) — probably the closest fit
jj treats work as changes that are routinely rewritten, split, moved, and promoted, instead of making you think in terms of one fragile staging area. It has a stable change ID distinct from the commit ID, so a change can keep its identity even as you rewrite it. It also has an operation log, which makes “undo/revert to earlier local state” much more first-class than plain Git reflog ergonomics. 

Why this matches your model:

each agent run can live as its own change

you can keep mutating that change without losing its identity

you can split, squash, rebase, or reorder changes later

“latest mess / partial / accepted” can be modeled as separate mutable changes, not just staged vs unstaged

The important mental shift is:

Git: “What is in the index right now?”

jj: “What are my current changes, and how do I want to rewrite or promote them?” 

For agent-heavy workflows, that is usually the better primitive.

2. Sapling (sl) — best if you want stacked promotion over Git-like repos
Sapling is more explicitly about stacks of commits. Its docs describe stacked work and the absorb command, which can automatically amend a change into the lower commit that originally introduced the edited lines when that is unambiguous. Sapling also records mutation history for rewritten commits, and it has a built-in undo for the last local command. 

Why this matches your model:

you can treat each “round” as another commit in a stack

later, you can absorb or fold pieces downward

you get a clearer “promotion ladder” than Git staging alone

If your intuition is “I want mini-staged rounds that I can promote and collapse,” Sapling is very aligned with that. 

What I would not recommend as your default answer
A pure patch-theory system like Pijul is philosophically closer to “changes as first-class objects,” but it still appears more niche and less operationally standard than jj or Sapling for everyday team workflows. Current public material still frames it as an in-development alternative built around patch theory. 

So unless you specifically want to explore patch theory as a research direction, I would not start there.

My actual recommendation
For your use case, I would choose like this:

Choose jj if:
you want to replace Git-thinking

you want each agent interaction to become a durable, rewritable change object

you care a lot about easy local history surgery and safe undo

you want “accepted / partial / scratch” to be modeled as revisions, not index state 

Choose Sapling if:
you still think in terms of commit stacks

you want a polished stacked-diff workflow

“rounds” feel like “small commits in a smart stack”

you like commands like absorb, fold, undo, smartlog 

How I would map your tiers
In either tool, stop thinking about:

unstaged

staged

and instead think:

scratch — latest agent output

candidate — compiles / plausibly useful

reviewed — you read it and mostly trust it

accepted — blessed

In jj, each of those can just be separate changes, or separate rewritten states of a change. In Sapling, they can be separate commits in a stack. 

Blunt answer
Yes: if you want to go beyond Git staging entirely, jj is probably the best current answer.

It is the closest thing to:

“every round is a real object”

“I can rewrite/promote it later”

“I can undo local history manipulation safely”

“I do not want my workflow defined by the index” 

Sapling is the runner-up if you want a more explicitly stacked-commit model. 

If you want, I can sketch a concrete agent-oriented jj workflow where each model run becomes its own promotable change with commands for promote, split, discard, and accept.


ok so im trying to learn JJ - basically, I want to see that my changes are logged, and I can jump around

I am mostly looking to the operatiosn log rn, with jj op, and having a hard tme understanding it

I’m pulling the current jj docs for the operation log and then I’ll translate it into the simpler mental model you actually need for navigating and undoing local state.

Thought for 6s
jj op log is tracking repository state transitions, not “your code changes” directly.

That is the key thing that makes it feel weird at first.

The mental model
There are two histories in jj:

1. Commit/change history
This is what jj log shows.

It answers:

what revisions exist

how they relate

what code changes are in them

2. Operation history
This is what jj op log shows.

It answers:

what commands changed the repo state

when your workspace/view/bookmarks/heads/working-copy moved

what earlier repo state you can jump back to or restore 

So:

jj log = history of changes

jj op log = history of edits to the history / workspace state

That distinction is the whole game.

What an operation actually is
The docs say each operation records a snapshot of how the repo looked at the end of that command. That snapshot is called a view. It includes things like:

heads

bookmarks / tags / Git refs

current working-copy commit in each workspace 

So when you run something like:

jj new

jj describe

jj squash

jj undo

even some commands that snapshot the working copy

you are creating a new operation. jj op log shows those operations, in order. 

Why it feels confusing
Because an operation is not “one logical patch.”

It is more like:

“At 2:14 PM, I ran a command, and here is the repo/workspace state after that command finished.”

That means jj op log is closer to:

local timeline

undo journal

state machine trace

than it is to a normal commit log.

The most useful way to read it
Read jj op log like this:

each row = one repo-state checkpoint

@ = the current operation

@- = the previous operation

@-- = two operations back

x+ / x- navigate parent/child operations 

So if you see:

@  abcdef123456 ... squash commits into ...
○  123456abcdef ... snapshot working copy
○  fedcba654321 ... new empty commit
that means:

current repo state is after the squash

one step before that, jj snapshotted the working copy

before that, you created a new empty commit 

This is not saying those are three commits in your branch.
It is saying those are three commands that changed repo state.

The command you probably want immediately
To understand an old operation, use:

jj --at-op <opid> st
jj --at-op <opid> log
The docs explicitly recommend --at-op for seeing what the repo looked like at an earlier operation. That is usually the missing piece. 

This is the important pattern:

jj op log tells you which checkpoint

jj --at-op=<that checkpoint> ... lets you inspect the repo as it looked then

So a good workflow is:

jj op log
jj --at-op @- st
jj --at-op @- log
jj --at-op @-- log
That makes the operation log suddenly make sense.

Jumping around: inspect vs actually move state
There are really three modes:

Just inspect old state
jj --at-op <opid> st
jj --at-op <opid> log
jj --at-op <opid> diff
This does not change your current repo state. It just loads the repo as it looked at that operation. Also, when doing this, the working copy is ignored. 

Undo the most recent operation
jj undo
This walks backward one operation at a time. The op log is specifically designed for this. 

Revert or restore older repo state
jj op revert <opid>
jj op restore <opid>
revert applies the inverse of one earlier operation

restore creates a new operation that restores the repo to the state at that earlier operation, effectively undoing all later operations 

The distinction:

revert = “undo just that one operation”

restore = “take me back to how everything looked then”

The cleanest analogy
Think of:

jj log as the story of your code

jj op log as the security camera footage of you editing the story

You use jj log to understand the feature.
You use jj op log to understand:

what you did locally

what command caused the weird state

what checkpoint you want to return to

For your use case specifically
You said you want:

to see that changes are logged

to jump around

to understand “rounds”

Then use this split:

Use jj log for:
“what are my rounds?”

“what changes currently exist?”

“what stack am I building?”

Use jj op log for:
“what commands happened?”

“when did I get into this weird state?”

“what local checkpoint do I want to inspect/undo/restore?” 

So if you are expecting jj op log to be your primary “rounds” view, that expectation is a little off.

Your “rounds” are usually better thought of as revisions/changes in jj log.

The operation log is the meta-history around those rounds.

The few commands I would drill first
jj log
jj op log
jj --at-op @- st
jj --at-op @- log
jj undo
jj op restore <opid>
And the key reading trick:

find an interesting operation in jj op log

run jj --at-op <that-op> log

compare with current jj log

That is how you build intuition.

One subtle but important point
The jj docs also note that the operation log is part of how jj supports concurrent, lock-free repo operations. So it is not just a UI convenience; it is a core state-history mechanism. 

That is why it is broad and repo-oriented, not narrowly “patch oriented.”

Practical takeaway
If you want a simple rule:

“What code changes exist?” → jj log

“What did I do to the repo?” → jj op log

“What did the repo look like at step N?” → jj --at-op <opid> ...

“Go back” → jj undo or jj op restore <opid> 

If you want, next I can give you a tiny fake example repo session showing:

jj new

edit files

jj describe

jj squash

jj op log

jj --at-op ... log

so you can see exactly how the two histories diverge.


i want to revert a delete i made

I’m checking the current jj command for undoing a file deletion, since the exact restore command in jj matters.

Thought for 8s
Use jj restore.

For a file you deleted in your current working copy, the usual command is:

jj restore path/to/file
That restores the file from the parent/base revision into your current working copy revision. jj restore is the command meant for bringing file contents back from another revision, and the docs also describe jj restore --from X for restoring from a specific revision. 

If you want to restore it from some specific revision instead of the default source, use:

jj restore --from <revset> path/to/file
Examples:

jj restore src/foo.ts
jj restore --from @- src/foo.ts
jj restore --from main src/foo.ts
jj revsets like @ and @- are standard revision selectors, and many jj commands accept them. 

To check what happened before restoring:

jj diff
jj file list
And if what you actually want is to undo the whole last repo operation rather than just one deleted file, use:

jj undo
The operation log / undo flow is the repo-state history, not just file history. 

If jj restore path/to/file errors, paste the exact command and output.


no i never commited - so basically, I wrote a file, ran jj (so it was commited, but like, not), then I reverted it by disacarding it. Now I want to pull this data in again. In git this is like a discarded file basscailly, I want to retreive that

This is likely recoverable through the operation log, because jj snapshots working-copy state as part of repo operations. I’m confirming the exact recovery path.

Thought for 5s
Yes — this is usually recoverable.

What happened is not “never committed” in the Git sense. In jj, your working copy is tracked through repo operations, and jj snapshots working-copy state, which is why jj undo can bring back working-copy changes in many cases. 

The cleanest recovery path is:

jj op log
Find the operation from before you discarded the file, then inspect that repo state:

jj --at-op <op-id-before-discard> st
jj --at-op <op-id-before-discard> log
--at-op lets you view the repository as it looked at that earlier operation, which is exactly what the operation log is for. 

Then restore the repo state you want:

jj op restore <op-id-before-discard>
jj op restore creates a new operation that restores the repository to how it looked at that earlier operation. The docs explicitly recommend using jj op log to find the operation and jj --at-op=<id> log to inspect it before restoring. 

The very likely simple case
If the discard was your most recent jj action, just do:

jj undo
jj undo undoes the most recent operation, and jj redo is its counterpart. Because jj snapshots the working copy, undoing a recent operation can restore working-copy changes rather than leaving you with a clean tree the way some other tools would. 

Practical sequence
Try this in order:

jj undo
If that was not the last operation, then:

jj op log
jj --at-op @- st
jj --at-op @- log
jj --at-op @-- st
jj --at-op @-- log
Once you find the state that still had the file:

jj op restore <that-op-id>
Important caution
jj op restore restores the repo state at that operation, so if you have newer work you care about, inspect first with --at-op before restoring. The docs specifically frame op restore as restoring the entire repo to an earlier state. 

If you want, paste the output of:

jj op log -n 5
and I’ll tell you exactly which operation to restore.


│  Changed working copy default@:
│  + rqzslkwl 833c4ba6 (conflict) (no description set)
│  - qsrwtukp 1e0cea43 (empty) (no description set)
○  964b3360ba85 dev@mlv-ubuntu-01 default@ 14 minutes ago, lasted 10 milliseconds
│  edit commit 1e0cea43f51f8699846cf61e193f146cf8df2d2d
│  args: jj edit -r qsrwtukp --config-file /home/dev/.cursor/extensions/jjk.jjk-0.10.0-universal/dist/config.toml

so llooiking at this, what do I want to do to go to this version agian

I’m confirming the exact jj operation command here, because the safest move depends on whether you want to inspect that old state or actually restore your repo to it.

Thought for 5s
Not that operation.

That 964b3360ba85 line is an operation, meaning “you ran jj edit -r qsrwtukp then.” It is not itself “the version” you want to edit. 

The useful thing in your snippet is this part:

Changed working copy default@:
+ rqzslkwl 833c4ba6 (conflict)
- qsrwtukp 1e0cea43 (empty)
That means the working copy commit changed from qsrwtukp / 1e0cea43 to rqzslkwl / 833c4ba6 during that operation. The actual old revision there is 1e0cea43, not the operation ID. 

If you want to go back to editing that old revision again, try:

jj edit 1e0cea43
or

jj edit qsrwtukp
That resumes editing that old change in your working copy. jj edit <commit> is the command for making that revision your current working copy again. 

Before doing that, inspect it:

jj show 1e0cea43
If that commit is hidden and you want to see the sequence of old working-copy incarnations, jj evolog is often the better tool than jj op log for this exact case. The FAQ explicitly says evolog shows the history of prior working-copy commits, including hidden ones. 

So the practical sequence is:

jj evolog
jj show 1e0cea43
jj edit 1e0cea43
If instead you want to restore the entire repo/workspace state from that operation, then use:

jj op restore 964b3360ba85
But that is much broader. It restores the repo to how it looked at that operation, not just that one deleted file/change. 

For your case, the most likely correct move is:

jj edit 1e0cea43
If you paste jj evolog -n 10, I can point to the exact revision to edit.


wait how do I go back

I’m verifying the exact jj command for “go back” versus “restore an old state,” since those are different in jj.

Thought for 7s
If you mean “go back one step,” use:

jj undo
That moves the repo back one operation. You can run it repeatedly to keep stepping backward through the operation log. jj redo moves forward again after that. 

So the immediate pair is:

jj undo
jj redo
If you mean “go back to that exact old repo state from jj op log,” use:

jj op restore 964b3360ba85
That restores the repository to how it looked at that operation. It is broader than jj undo. 

If you want to inspect before doing that:

jj --at-op 964b3360ba85 log
jj --at-op 964b3360ba85 st
And one important distinction: if what you really want is “resume editing that old change again,” that is usually jj edit <rev> or finding it via jj evolog, not jj op restore. evolog is specifically for the history of a single evolving change. 

For your case, the safest first thing to try is:

jj undo
If that does not land where you want, paste jj op log -n 5 and I’ll tell you the exact next command.


ok so basically how do I undo, but lik,e, choose a speicifc op to jump to

I’m checking the exact jj command semantics here, because “undo to a chosen op” in jj is not the same as moving a pointer like git reset --hard.

Thought for 5s
Use jj op restore <op-id>.

That is the command for “take me to the repo state as of this specific operation.” It creates a new operation that restores the repo to how it looked then, effectively undoing all later operations. 

For example:

jj op log
jj --at-op 964b3360ba85 log
jj --at-op 964b3360ba85 st
jj op restore 964b3360ba85
The middle two commands are the safe inspection step. The docs explicitly recommend using jj --at-op=<operation ID> log before restoring, so you can confirm that is the state you want. 

Important distinction:

jj undo = step back one operation at a time, repeat if needed. 

jj op restore <op> = jump back to a specific operation. 

jj op revert <op> = invert just that one old operation, not “time travel” back to it. 

So for “undo, but choose the exact op,” the answer is:

jj op restore <op-id>
If you only want to inspect that old state without changing anything yet:

jj --at-op <op-id> log
jj --at-op <op-id> st
If you paste the 3–5 surrounding lines from jj op log, I can tell you which exact op to restore.


Ok this is sick -- how can I filter logs of jj to only show things that actually alter files

I’m checking whether jj exposes a built-in way to filter either revision logs or operation logs down to file-changing entries only, since those are different layers.

Thought for 22s
Yes — for revision logs use a revset filter.

The main one is:

jj log -r '~empty()'
empty() matches commits that modify no files, so ~empty() shows only revisions that actually changed files. The revset docs define empty() as “commits modifying no files,” and files(expression) matches commits that modify paths matching a fileset. 

Useful variants:

jj log -r 'mutable() & ~empty()'
jj log -r 'mine() & ~empty()'
jj log path/to/file
jj log -r 'files("src/") & ~empty()'
jj log <path> is effectively using the same file-based filtering idea as files(...). 

The important caveat:

jj log filters revisions/changes

jj op log is the operation log

For jj op log, there is not really a built-in “only show ops that altered files” view in the same sense, because ops track repo/workspace operations, and jj snapshots the working copy at the beginning of almost every command. So even commands that are not conceptually “real code changes” can still produce op-log noise. 

So the practical answer is:

to see only actual code-changing revisions:

jj log -r '~empty()'
to see only changes touching a path:

jj log path/to/file
for op history, there is no equally clean built-in “file-changing ops only” filter; use jj log or jj evolog when your intent is “show me meaningful content changes,” not “show me every operation.” 

A very good default alias is:

[aliases]
ll = ["log", "-r", "mutable() & ~empty()"]
Then:

jj ll
shows your local non-empty work.


how can I get cursor to run jj on every save, so every change is versioned

I’m checking whether Cursor has a native “run command on save” hook, versus needing a VS Code-style extension or file watcher workaround.

Thought for 7s
Probably not natively in Cursor itself.

I could not find an official Cursor setting for “run an arbitrary shell command on every save.” Cursor’s docs cover terminal access and Git integration, but not a built-in save hook for custom commands. 

The practical way is to use a VS Code-compatible extension in Cursor, since Cursor keeps the VS Code-style extension model. One extension specifically meant for this is Actions On Save, which runs configured shell commands when matching files are saved. 

The setup I would use
Install the extension:

tonychen.actions-on-save 

Then in your workspace .vscode/settings.json, configure something like:

{
  "actionsOnSave": {
    "**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx,rs,py,go}": "jj describe -m 'autosave snapshot' || jj new -m 'autosave snapshot'"
  }
}
But I would not actually recommend that exact jj command.

Better pattern for jj
Running a real jj history mutation on every single save will get noisy fast. jj already records repository operations, and its operation log is built around those repo-state transitions. 

A better pattern is:

on every save, run something lightweight that snapshots or validates

use jj new, jj describe, or jj squash at deliberate boundaries

rely on jj op log / jj evolog for recovery and movement between states

If you truly want “every save is versioned,” the cleanest implementation is usually a small wrapper script that:

checks whether there is a diff,

creates or updates a dedicated autosave change,

avoids duplicating empty/no-op saves.

For example:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail

if jj diff --summary | grep -q .; then
  jj describe -m "autosave: $(date '+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')" >/dev/null 2>&1 || true
fi
and then trigger that script on save.

Strong caution
If your real goal is:

“I want to recover agent output”

“I want tiny rounds”

“I want promotion tiers”

then every-save autosnapshotting may be too granular. It tends to produce a lot of low-signal history and may fight with the way you want to treat agent runs as meaningful units.

A better cadence is often:

autosave hook for lint/check/snapshot metadata

explicit hotkey/command for “promote this round into a jj change”

So instead of every save:

every agent run

every accepted edit burst

every “this compiles now”

That usually matches your intent better.

What I would do in your shoes
Use Cursor + Actions On Save for one of these:

Option 1: lightweight on-save check
{
  "actionsOnSave": {
    "**/*": "./scripts/jj-autosnapshot.sh"
  }
}
Option 2: only run on selected source files
{
  "actionsOnSave": {
    "src/**/*.{ts,tsx}": "./scripts/jj-autosnapshot.sh"
  }
}
Option 3: do not snapshot on save; bind a shortcut
Use a command runner/macro extension so one key does:

save all

run your jj snapshot script

That is usually cleaner than true every-save versioning. 

My blunt recommendation: do not run a full jj history action on every save. Use an extension to trigger a small script, and make that script conservative. That gives you the safety net without turning your repo history into static.

If you want, I can give you a concrete jj-autosnapshot.sh that creates a rolling “autosave” change without cluttering your real history.


I see, so all of the jj operations are squashed when we merge?

I’m checking the current jj docs for what survives into Git history versus what remains local metadata, since jj operations and revisions are different things.

Thought for 6s
No.

jj operations and jj revisions/commits are different things. The operation log is local repo-state history — it is the thing that powers undo and is described by the docs as replacing Git reflogs. It tracks atomic updates to the repo/workspace state, not the code-history objects you normally merge or push. 

What gets merged or pushed is the commit/revision history, not the operation log. In jj, a revision’s commit ID is the Git commit ID when using the Git backend, and in colocated repos jj synchronizes its view with Git’s view. That means your normal merge/push result is about commits, bookmarks/branches, and whatever history shape you choose to publish — not the internal sequence of local operations that got you there. 

So the right mental model is:

jj op log = local “how did I manipulate the repo?” journal

jj log = actual change/commit history

merge/squash/rebase decisions affect the commit history

the op log stays a local recovery/history mechanism, more like a powerful reflog than part of the merged branch history 

One subtle point: jj’s backend keeps refs for commits reachable from the operation log so Git GC does not delete them too early. That means operations can keep local objects alive for recovery, but that still does not mean the operation log itself becomes part of the merged shared history. 

So the blunt answer is:

No, the jj operations are not what gets “squashed when you merge.”

Your commits/changes may be squashed, rebased, merged, or rewritten depending on your workflow.

The operation log is local meta-history about how you got there. 

A useful rule:

“Will teammates see this on the branch?” → think jj log

“Can I locally undo how I got here?” → think jj op log 


wait this is kept forever???? this is an insane amount of data

I’m checking how jj retains operation history and what cleanup/GC controls exist, because the answer depends on jj’s garbage-collection behavior rather than “forever” in the literal sense.

Thought for 5s
Not forever in the practical sense.

Two different things are being retained:

The operation log itself, which is local repo metadata used for undo/recovery.

Keep refs / unreachable objects that jj preserves so Git GC does not immediately delete commits still reachable from the operation log. The architecture docs say the Git backend stores refs for commits reachable from the operation log under refs/jj/keep/. 

So your instinct is right: this can create a lot of local history. But it is not meant to be “infinitely accumulate everything with no cleanup ever.”

jj has garbage-collection support via jj util gc, which exists specifically for cleanup. The CLI reference documents that command, and the architecture docs explain why extra refs are kept in the first place. 

The more important practical point is this:

jj snapshots the working copy at the beginning of almost every command by default, which is why the op log can grow quickly in active use. 

Recent versions also improved jj op log -p, jj op diff, and related views to show only “interesting” revisions by default, which is partly about reducing noise when inspecting operations. 

So the right reaction is not “this is broken,” but rather:

yes, jj intentionally keeps a rich local recovery journal,

yes, that can be large/noisy,

and the answer is to use GC/retention controls and not rely on op history as your permanent archive. 

The blunt mental model:

jj log is your real change history.

jj op log is your local safety net.

GC is what stops the safety net from turning into unbounded junk forever. 

Check your local help for the exact GC knobs in your installed version:

jj util gc --help
and inspect how much JJ metadata you are carrying with:

du -sh .jj .git
git for-each-ref refs/jj/keep --format='%(refname)' | wc -l
If you want, I can help you design a sane jj policy like “keep rich op history for 7–14 days, then GC aggressively.”


got it - basically, on file safe, I want to write an operation commit, so not "real commit", just an op log change

I’m verifying whether jj has a supported way to force an operation entry without creating a meaningful new revision, versus relying on how working-copy snapshots already work.

Thought for 9s
Yes — that is basically possible, but the important detail is:

You do not need a “fake commit” command.

In jj, the working copy is automatically snapshotted at the beginning of almost every jj command, and that snapshot is recorded as an operation. The docs describe the flow as: snapshot working copy, record operation, then do the command’s main work. They also note that even non-mutating commands like jj log can create a snapshot operation if the working copy changed. 

So your save-hook design can simply be:

on file save

run some harmless jj command

that causes jj to snapshot the changed working copy

the snapshot shows up in jj op log

A minimal choice is:

jj log -n 1 --ignore-working-copy=false
But practically, even just:

jj log -n 1
will usually do it, because jj snapshots the working copy by default at the beginning of commands. 

The catch
This will create a lot of operation-log noise.

Because:

almost every jj command snapshots the working copy by default, and

each snapshot becomes an operation entry if something changed. 

So yes, you can absolutely wire Cursor save events to “version” every save into the op log, but the result will be closer to:

local time-machine journal
than

clean semantic rounds

Best implementation
Use Cursor save hook or a save-trigger extension to run something tiny like:

jj log -n 1
That is enough to force jj to notice and snapshot the current working copy if it changed. The FAQ even notes that jj operation log --limit 1 also takes a snapshot if needed. 

So two viable “poke JJ” commands are:

jj log -n 1
or

jj op log -n 1
Which one I would pick
I would use:

jj op log -n 1
Why:

it is semantically aligned with what you want: “record and inspect operation history”

the docs explicitly note it also snapshots if needed. 

Important distinction
This does not create a separate durable “mini commit” per save in the history you merge/push.

It creates:

a new working-copy snapshot if files changed

a new operation-log entry around that snapshot

So this is good for:

recovery

local undo

“what did my file look like 8 saves ago?”

It is not good for:

meaningful review history

promotion tiers

clean shared history

Practical recommendation
If your goal is purely “never lose a save,” do this.

If your goal is “every save is a meaningful round,” do not do this. Use explicit agent-run checkpoints instead.

A good split is:

every save → jj op log -n 1

every agent run / meaningful checkpoint → real jj change management

One more thing
If you do this, you will probably want a tighter view when inspecting operations. jj supports configuring which revisions are considered “interesting” in operation diffs via revsets.op-diff-changes-in, which can reduce noise when viewing op diffs/logs. 

So the blunt answer is:

Yes: on save, run a harmless jj command such as jj op log -n 1, and JJ will snapshot the working copy into the operation log without creating a “real commit” you intend to merge. 

If you want, I can give you the exact Cursor settings.json + shell script for this.


wow the local changes thing is insane

Thought for a couple of seconds
Yes. That is the part of jj that feels almost magical once it clicks.

The big difference is:

Git treats local uncommitted work as fragile side-state

jj treats local work much more like first-class history

So “I deleted it” or “I never really committed it” stops meaning “it is probably gone.” Instead it becomes more like:

there was an earlier working-copy state

it is probably in the operation history

you can often get back to it

That is why it feels so much safer for agent-heavy workflows. An agent can churn on files, you can discard things, bounce around, and still often recover earlier local states.

The downside is exactly what you noticed earlier:

more local history

more noise

more need to understand the difference between jj log, jj evolog, and jj op log

A good compressed mental model is:

jj log = real change history

jj evolog = past versions of a change / working-copy lineage

jj op log = local timeline of repo-state operations

Once that clicks, jj starts feeling less like “better git add” and more like a local time machine.

The part that is especially strong for your use case is that it fits messy iterative agent output much better than Git’s “staged vs unstaged and pray.”


how does jj describe work

I’m checking the current jj docs for describe, because the exact behavior around the working-copy commit and revision selection matters.

Thought for 7s
jj describe changes the description/message of an existing revision. It does not create a new revision by itself. 

The simplest form is:

jj describe -m "my message"
That rewrites the current working-copy revision @ so its description becomes "my message". Because jj treats revisions as mutable, this is more like “rename/edit this change” than Git’s “make a brand-new immutable commit object and move on.” 

The practical mental model
Think of it like this:

jj describe = name or rename this change

jj new = start a new change on top

jj commit = shorthand for jj describe then jj new when used without path args or --interactive 

So:

jj describe -m "fix auth bug"
means:

“The change I am currently editing should be called ‘fix auth bug’.”

Whereas:

jj commit -m "fix auth bug"
means roughly:

“Name the current change ‘fix auth bug’, then open a fresh working-copy change on top.” 

What revision does it affect?
By default, it affects the current revision @, but you can target another revision with -r. The docs for jj commands generally use revsets for revision selection, and commands like edit expect a single revision selected that way. 

So conceptually:

jj describe -r <rev> -m "new message"
means:

rewrite that revision’s description.

Why it feels odd if you come from Git
In Git, you often think:

edit files

stage

commit

message is attached at commit time

In jj, you are usually already inside a working-copy revision, so describe is just updating that change’s human label. That is why people often use it casually and repeatedly as the shape of the change becomes clearer. 

The most common pattern
A normal loop is:

jj new
# edit files
jj describe -m "implement X"
# edit more
jj squash
jj describe -m "implement X cleanly"
That is: keep refining the same change, and keep renaming it if needed.

One-liner summary
jj describe = set or change the message of the current revision.
jj commit = describe + new. 

If useful, I can next explain jj describe vs jj new vs jj commit in pure Git terms.


I see, jj evolog is the closest thing I want

I’m checking the current jj docs for evolog so I can map it cleanly against the “rounds/local versions” workflow you want.

Thought for 5s
Yes — that sounds right.

jj evolog is the closest thing to:

“show me the successive versions of this one change”

“show me the local rounds of this work”

“let me recover an earlier incarnation of what I was editing”

The jj tutorial describes evolog as showing how a change has evolved over time, including working-copy changes, message changes, squashes, rebases, and similar rewrites. 

That makes it a much better fit than jj op log for the workflow you seem to want.

The clean split is:

jj log = the graph of revisions/changes

jj evolog = the history of one evolving change

jj op log = the repo/workspace operation journal used for undoing and inspecting earlier repo states 

So if your mental model is:

“I keep iterating on one thing, and I want to see its rounds and jump back to an earlier local version,”

then jj evolog is the right tool.

A good default workflow is:

jj evolog
jj show <old-revision-from-evolog>
jj edit <old-revision-from-evolog>
jj edit <commit> resumes editing that revision in the working copy, and the tutorial explicitly calls out evolog for viewing prior recorded states of the current change. 

One other useful update: there is now an official jj util snapshot command for manually triggering a snapshot, instead of poking jj indirectly with another command. That is relevant to your save-hook idea. 

So the refined picture is:

if you want every save captured locally, use jj util snapshot

if you want to browse the sequence of local versions of a change, use jj evolog

if you want to recover from repo-state mistakes, use jj op log / jj undo / jj op restore 

The blunt summary: evolog is the “rounds” view; op log is the “what commands happened to my repo” view.

A very useful next step is to alias it to something shorter, like:

[aliases]
evo = ["evolog"]
and then just use jj evo as your local time-machine view.


so how do I make a PR

I’m checking the current jj and GitHub flow for PRs, because the exact answer depends on whether you want one PR from a branch or stacked PRs from multiple changes.

Thought for 8s
Yes. In jj, the usual PR flow is:

make or clean up the change you want reviewed

attach a bookmark to it

push that bookmark to the remote

open the PR on GitHub, usually with gh pr create

jj maps bookmarks to Git branches on the remote, so pushing a bookmark is how you publish a PR branch. 

For a single PR, the simplest flow is:

jj log
jj bookmark set my-feature
jj git push --bookmark my-feature
gh pr create --head my-feature
That matches the documented GitHub workflow for jj: set a bookmark, push it, then open the PR with GitHub. Some guides also note that after push, GitHub may show you a browser link to create the PR. 

A slightly nicer variant, if your current change is the one you want to publish, is:

jj bookmark set my-feature -r @
jj git push --bookmark my-feature
gh pr create --head my-feature
Use a bookmark name that you are happy to expose as the branch name, because that is what GitHub will see remotely. jj bookmarks are the local counterpart to Git branches in colocated Git repos. 

If you are doing stacked PRs, the idea is the same, but each reviewable change gets its own bookmark and PR. jj itself does not currently have first-class GitHub-PR-special-ref handling for every PR workflow, so using gh or occasional plain git alongside jj is still a normal pattern. 

The practical rule is:

local history surgery and cleanup: jj

publish branch/bookmark: jj git push

create the GitHub PR object: gh pr create or the GitHub web UI 

If you want, I can give you the exact 3-command flow for your current repo state, including how to make a PR from just one selected jj change instead of your whole stack.


[how does stacked prs work

I’m checking the current jj-to-GitHub stacked-PR flow so I can explain the mechanics cleanly instead of hand-waving.

Thought for 6s
A stacked PR flow means you split one larger feature into a sequence of small dependent changes, and each one gets its own PR. Instead of one giant PR to main, you get something like: PR A targets main, PR B targets PR A, PR C targets PR B. That lets reviewers look at each layer independently, and you can keep building later layers without waiting for the first one to merge. 

In jj terms, the natural local model is already a stack of revisions. The jj GitHub docs explicitly say the simplest workflow is to create a stack of commits first, and only create bookmarks when you need to push the stack to a remote. 

The main subtlety is GitHub itself does not natively understand “this is a stack” as a first-class object. What stack tools do in practice is create one remote branch per layer, and then each PR’s base branch is set to the previous layer instead of main. That is why stack tooling often says “each bookmark becomes a PR targeting the previous bookmark, or trunk.” 

A concrete example helps. Say your feature has three logical layers: feat-a adds auth primitives, feat-b adds sessions and depends on A, feat-c adds logout and depends on B. The remote PR structure becomes: feat-a -> main, feat-b -> feat-a, feat-c -> feat-b. Reviewers on PR C only need to review the delta from B to C, not the whole feature. 

Locally in jj, you would usually make three revisions in a stack. Then you attach bookmarks to the tips you want to publish. Pushing those bookmarks gives GitHub the branch references needed to open the PRs. The jj GitHub guide describes this bookmark-based publish flow. 

The biggest advantage is review quality and throughput. Each PR is small, easier to reason about, and later work does not block on earlier review. Graphite’s docs and writeups emphasize exactly this: stacking breaks large changes into smaller reviewable increments that can be developed and reviewed concurrently. 

The biggest downside is merge mechanics. Because GitHub does not have native stack semantics, tooling has to update bases, restack branches, and merge in order. That is why tools like Graphite automate merging stacks one-by-one, rebasing as needed, and why jj users often pair jj with GitHub tooling or helper scripts for stacked PR publishing. 

For your workflow, the right mental model is: use jj locally to manage the stack of changes, and use bookmarks plus GitHub tooling to project that stack into a chain of PRs. jj is excellent at the local stack; GitHub needs help to represent that stack cleanly as review units. 

If you want, next I can show the exact jj commands for a 3-layer stacked PR flow on GitHub.


can jj work with graphite -- basiclaly, graphite for bookmark authroity, jj for local oplog

Thought for a few seconds
Yes, in principle.

That split is roughly:

jj locally for working-copy history, evolog, op log, rewrites

Graphite/GitHub branches remotely as the authority for stacked PR branch layout

Why this can work:
jj bookmarks map to Git branches when talking to Git remotes, so from Graphite’s point of view they are just ordinary Git branches. jj can push a bookmark to a same-named remote branch, and remote-tracking bookmarks record the last seen remote state. 

So the model would be:

Do local editing/history surgery in jj

Put bookmarks on the changes you want represented as PR branches

Push those bookmarks

Let Graphite treat those branches as the branch/stack authority

That said, there are two important caveats.

First, Graphite is branch-centric, while jj is change-centric. The integration point is therefore the bookmark/branch boundary, not Graphite understanding jj operations. Graphite will not care about your local op log; that stays purely local in jj. What Graphite sees are the pushed branches corresponding to bookmarks. 

Second, there can be friction if both sides move the same stack. There is at least recent discussion from jj users about conflicts when remote branches are restacked elsewhere and then fetched back into jj; jj can surface bookmark conflicts in that situation. So “Graphite is the authority” needs to be real: avoid having both jj and Graphite independently restack/publish the same remote stack without a clear owner. 

My practical recommendation:

Use jj as the local editing/time-machine layer

Use Graphite as the remote PR/stack publishing layer

Treat bookmarks as the handshake

Pick one side as the authority for remote restacking. If that is Graphite, then use jj mostly to prepare local changes and move bookmarks into place before push, but avoid also doing competing remote stack surgery in jj. 

So the short answer is: yes, but only if you keep the responsibility boundary clean. jj works fine with a Git-branch-based remote workflow because bookmarks are just branches at the Git boundary, but Graphite will not understand or preserve jj’s local op-log semantics. 

A sane version of your setup would be:

jj for local evolog / op log / rewrite workflow

bookmarks only when a change is ready to become a PR branch

Graphite for stack visualization, PR creation, and remote restacking


no, I would use gt submit/gt modify still, just jj does its own oplog stuff for file history

I’m checking the current Graphite/JJ interoperability details, especially whether gt submit / gt modify will tolerate jj rewriting local branch state as long as Git branches remain the published interface.

Thought for 8s
Yes, that can work.

In that setup, jj is basically your local working-copy time machine, while Graphite remains the Git branch / PR stack manager. That boundary is mechanically plausible because jj maps bookmarks to Git branches when interacting with Git repos, and in colocated repos it imports/exports branch state through that mapping. 

The main thing to understand is that Graphite’s core commands are still very much branch-and-commit oriented. gt modify amends the current branch’s commit or creates a new commit, and it can auto-restack descendants; gt submit publishes branch-based stacks for review. So Graphite is not going to read or care about jj op log or jj evolog directly. Those stay local to jj. 

So your proposed split becomes:

use jj for local edit history, recovery, evolog, op log

keep Graphite as the source of truth for branch stack structure and PR submission

only sync them at the Git-branch boundary, via bookmarks/branches and normal Git state 

That said, there is one important friction point: jj does not have a “current bookmark” concept, and bookmarks do not move just because you create a new commit the way a Git current branch would. Bookmarks follow rewrites of the commit they point to, but they are still a distinct layer from “whatever I’m currently editing.” Graphite, by contrast, assumes a current branch model. 

So the answer is:

Yes, if Graphite owns branch topology and PR submission.

Be careful if you also let jj move bookmarks/branch pointers aggressively, because that starts overlapping with Graphite’s job. 

The safe mental model is:

jj may rewrite commits locally all day

Graphite should be the thing that decides what branches exist, how they restack, and what gets submitted

when you are ready, make sure the Git branch Graphite thinks it is operating on points at the commit you want published 

The biggest operational risk is this: if jj rewrites commit history underneath a branch that Graphite is tracking, Graphite will still operate in terms of branch heads and commit relationships. That can work fine, but you want to avoid surprising Graphite with frequent invisible history surgery unless you are disciplined about syncing and checking branch state afterward. Graphite’s docs are built around commands like gt track, gt modify, gt submit, and gt sync, all of which assume branch state is the thing being managed. 

So the blunt recommendation is:

Yes, but keep jj local and mostly non-branch-authoritative.
Use it for file/version recovery and local change evolution. Let Graphite continue to own:

branch names

stack parentage

submit flow

sync / cleanup after merge 

A good practical policy would be:

do local coding and recovery with jj

avoid using jj as your primary bookmark/branch management tool

before gt modify / gt submit, confirm the Git branch head is where you expect

let Graphite restack and submit from there 

So your exact phrasing is basically right:

Graphite for branch authority, jj for local file history.

That is the cleanest version of the hybrid.


doesht GH have like native stacked diffs soon(tm)

Thought for 4s
Yes — seemingly yes, soon-ish.

GitHub has a roadmap item called “Pull request stacks [Preview]” published on January 29, 2026. The stated outcome is that pull requests can be stacked on top of each other, branch protections/rules apply to each PR in the stack, and all or part of the stack can be merged once requirements are met. 

So the current picture is:

GitHub appears to be actively building native stacked PR support, and it is in Preview on the public roadmap. 

Today, many teams still rely on external tooling or conventions for stacked diffs, which is why tools like gh-stack, spr, Graphite, and marketplace apps exist. 

Historically, GitHub community threads asking for dependent/stacked PRs go back years, so this roadmap item is the clearest sign yet that native support is actually happening rather than just “maybe someday.” 

What I would infer from that:

Native support is coming, but you should still assume external tooling is necessary until the preview is available to you and covers your actual workflow.

“Soon(tm)” is more justified than it used to be, because this is not just a forum request anymore; it is a named roadmap item in preview. 

For your workflow, that means Graphite may still make sense as the remote stack authority for now, but there is a plausible future where GitHub itself handles stacked PR semantics directly. 


does gh-stack work better with jj

basically, im convinced jj is the better tool long-term for me building, but graphite review is still better.

I would be willing to have something like gh-stack + greptile

I’m checking the current state of gh-stack with jj, plus whether Greptile can cover the review layer cleanly.

Thought for 18s
Not really.

gh-stack is built around stacks of branches on GitHub; its own docs describe a stack as “an ordered list of branches,” with each PR based on the branch below it. jj, by contrast, is built around changes/revisions and only introduces bookmarks when you need to push to a remote, and jj explicitly does not have a normal “working branch” model. That means gh-stack is conceptually closer to Git/branch workflows than to jj’s native model. 

So the blunt answer is:

gh-stack does not look like the best fit for jj.

A jj-native PR publisher is a better fit if you want to keep jj as your real local workflow.

Greptile can still sit on top of GitHub PRs regardless of whether those PRs came from Graphite, gh-stack, or a jj-native tool, because its product is PR review in GitHub/GitLab with full-codebase context. 

What fits jj better are tools like:

jj-stack, which says it uses jj bookmarks and jj log to understand your local stack and create properly linked GitHub PRs. 

jj-ryu, which is specifically for pushing jj bookmark stacks to GitHub/GitLab as chained PRs and explicitly leaves local stack management to jj commands. 

jj-domino and jjpr, both of which are explicitly PR stack managers for Jujutsu. 

That matters because it matches the boundary you seem to want:

jj owns local evolution, recovery, evolog, op log

a thin publisher turns the current jj stack into GitHub PRs

GitHub/Greptile handles review comments

That is cleaner than forcing a branch-native stack tool to be your projection layer. 

So I would rank your options like this:

Best alignment with your stated goal

jj + jj-stack/jj-ryu/jjpr + Greptile

jj locally + Graphite remotely, if you really value Graphite’s review/stack UX

jj + gh-stack, which is workable in theory only if you are willing to think in branches again, but that is moving away from why jj feels better in the first place. 

If your real priority is:

“jj is my long-term local tool, but I still want strong review help now”

then the most coherent setup is probably:

jj locally + jj-native PR stack publisher + Greptile for review. Greptile should not care much how the PR was created, as long as it exists on GitHub. 

If instead you care about Graphite’s review UX specifically, then I would keep Graphite, not replace it with gh-stack. Graphite is branch-stack oriented too, but at least it is giving you the actual review experience you value; gh-stack is more of a stack transport/publishing tool than a review product. 

My recommendation: skip gh-stack for this. Try jj-ryu or jj-stack, then layer Greptile on top.





1Password menu is available. Press down arrow to select.