> For example, you could write `jj merge @ main` to make a merge commit with the working copy[1] and the `main` branch.
Since it's my first time seeing this, the syntax is a bit confusing, the man says "Unlike most other VCSs, `jj merge` does not implicitly include the working copy revision's parent as one of the parents of the merge; you need to explicitly list all revisions that should become parents of the merge.", it's not clear to me if the order matters and how many can be listed (and why for more than 2).
What I wanted to replicate was just doing a "git co main; git merge feature-branch", thanks for the explanation.
> git log`/`jj log` are non-mutating operations, so why would you expect that they can update `HEAD`/branches?
What I meant was that with git status/log the differences between your local clone and the remote are clearly shown, you know if they are misaligned and see the last commit for each branch without using additional commands, jj log/st provide way less info. I see where "main" is in jj log but have no idea if that label will update after a push or a fetch of the remote. Just a bit confusing for newcomers, I have to play with it.
> You would expect the push to fail in the normal way, as if you had manually done the rebase, because your commit history may have diverged. That being said, I don't think this happens much in practice: the automatic rebases are typically for explicit history-rewriting operations that users tend to only do on their local work. If a user prefers to use a "no-rewriting" workflow, then they can certainly do so by simply not issuing the history-rewriting commands.
Yeah, most of those rebases happen in the working copy or inside the anonymous branch.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can do `jj merge` in a similar way to `git merge`, or you can do a rebase workflow.
I just meant merging a feature branch back to its parent, jj merge exists but it's not obvious which revisions you are supposed to pass to it and jj log doesn't even seem to be able to update the HEAD for the parent branch. It should be an easy operation but it's not, clearly not the suggested workflow (or at least, not documented from what I've read).
I've just started looking into this, and since this seems to be doing a few automatic rebases under the hood, I wonder how this behave if commits get randomly pushed to origin. For git is always obvious when you are about to amend/overwrite a pushed HEAD and you can push forcefully only explicitly.
Edit: anonymous branches are destined to be pushed remotely (to be reviewed and merged) and there is no local merge as far as I can tell, you can name these branches but no "merge back to development branch once done". Completely different workflow, having the ability to merge or "collapse" the anonymous branch to its parent would be nice, when you don't really need to push your feature branches anywhere.
I didn't say non-academic, I explicitly said "crazy people".
The lab theory will be taken seriously when there will be serious evidences. If they exist they will come out. Believing in conspiracies because enough people believe in them without any actual, tangible, verifiable evidence is worrying.
The option "intensive farming+poverty+open market full of crap+random bats, all in extremely unsanitary conditions" seems a way better theory, needing way less evidence (also hard to acquire in this case), if you compare it to the random lab doing experiments full of incompetent researchers.
Man, you are talking about yourself, you literally started this subthread with the basic set of round of the mill covid contrarians BS that have 0 ground in reality and survive only thanks to the emotional attachment of people like you.
When asked for evidence you post the usual cherrypicked random stuff that aligns with what you believe (the only valid sources).
My recommendation is to just stop with this imaginary fight for the truth, when everyone is moving on and no one even cares anymore about these creative reinterpretations of reality. You lost any credibility with the first message of this chain, too much BS. Free yourself.
A lot of people were extremely confused during the pandemic and that's why they couldn't differentiate between actual verifiable information being shared and some random newscaster saying, wrongly, that vaccines prevented infection. A few years later they don't even know what is true anymore.
> The 95% they're claiming came straight from the press release which was only about sickness, not infection.
Yep, I repeated this so many times that toward the end I started just insulting people for not knowing.
Actually I was not sure which kind of masks you meant so I pointed out that real masks worked, but yes, obviously cotton/silk/lines/whatever masks without any kind of filter are useless.
Don't post random "he said this, he said that" links please, there has been 0 doubt in my mind that since the release of the vaccines the only effect they had was to reduce the probability of serious illness, as repeated multiple times above.
> or are just gaslighting me as covidians have a tendency to do.
Why? Because it's not an attractive profession nowadays. Not for the few hundreds of deniers that were fired.
> You're rather proving my point. So many people are just not ready to have a rational conversation about these narratives. It's all just tribalism and dogma, and we will have to wait years for people like you to calm down to the point where you are able to have reasonably conversations on these topics again.
I haven't seen any rational or unique point in everything you have written, only spitting the usual covid deniers nonsense.
You know what my real fear is? The fear that people that have this kind of opinions regarding the pandemic will apply the same reasoning to the next one or to the next crisis. I have a different opinion of preppers now.
> as having a 95% effectiveness against transmission for the original strain.
95% reduction of serious illness. The objective of the mass vaccination was having as much people as possible survive the pandemic. Herd immunity was just noise. There were a lot of noise and nonsense.
> Cloth masks are objectively useless for personal protection.
Proper masks are effective as measured multiple times, tons of statistics on it.
Yeah, the handling was not great but sadly I'm not really sure if the population was ready for detailed debate, considering that a good chunk of it ended up misunderstanding most of the official notices and falling for the most stupid conspiracy theories.
We need to improve education, by A LOT. And it's everyone responsibility.
I don't forget anything. As I can't forget all the times that I had to explain, since the beginning, that the only statistics available where about reducing to 0 the risk of serious illness. Don't try to change history, please.
And don't link me some random idiot's tweet as proof, we are better than this.
Just stop now and accept reality, it's a good thing that they got rid of your mother in law, I wonder in how much more pseudo science she believes in.
Where I live, people that refused the vaccine were treated as utter idiots but still welcome in hospitals, most of the famous local covid denier died there too.
No, that right there is how I remind you that if you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously you need proofs or at least a very compelling argument. There was neither.