I'm having a hard time understanding your question. are you asking how people who are unfamiliar with git and jj should mentally model a stack of PRs? and that this is a problem because it's intimidating for them when an expert (in git? in the codebase?) is reviewing their code?
if yes:
while jj does make stacked PRs quite easy, I think this tutorial is mostly aimed at people who are still getting their feet wet and not making stacks of PRs. and if the expert is intimidating, tell them to be helpful or fuck off
if no:
well I don't understand your question, but probably don't `jj edit` the commit at the bottom of a stack; `jj new` and, when you're ready, either `jj squash` it down or `jj rebase -s @ -A @-` your change into the stack instead
the thing about rebasing/cherry-picking (including just popping the stash) in git is that you only have 2 choices: fix the conflict now or abandon the entire rebase/cherry-pick
with jj, you have the option to fix half of it and come back later. you can take a look and see how bad the conflicts are if you go a certain route and compare to another option
`jj op` has `log` to show you the op log, `show`/`diff` which work like their non-op versions, and `jj op restore` which is sorta like `git reset --hard HEAD@{whatever}` but for your whole repo state
bitbucket will merge a PR from your feature branch onto the base branch even if it's not fast-forward from the base branch. as long as you use the "squash" or "rebase" option on the PR interface (instead of the "merge" option), the resulting history will be linear
`git rebase -i` lets you reorder one branch of commits easily
in a stacked PR workflow, after the bottom PR merges, you now want to rebase the whole stack atop the main branch. if that's 3 PRs, that's 3 branches, 3 rebases
one thing `git rebase` doesn't let you do but `jj rebase -s source -d dest` does is move a commit from one branch to another (`git switch dest`, `git cherry-pick source`, `git switch -C source source^`, `git switch dest`)
it feels like we're conflating two issues here: fixing the bug on time and paying out the researcher. at the point where the bug is too complicated to fix within SLA and the exception has been escalated to senior leadership, surely the bug bounty team can pay the researcher?
Don't jump to conclusions too fast about a reduced example to demonstrate a problem.
I probably originally had 2 expressions that evaluated to booleans. I may have been using `is` to check that the type of one was actually a bool rather than just falsey.
IIRC, I originally had 2 expressions that evaluated to booleans that I was comparing. I don't remember if I had parens, but I do remember being deeply confused once there were no parens.
Nullsec is dominated by the nullsec alliances, and big battles, which are the only thing non-EVE media reports on, happen almost exclusively in nullsec.
Yeah, but if you have a test suite you add Python 3 and silence the existing failures.
They likely already know where a lot of their failures are going to be even without tests. The effort involved in fixing those known failures alone is prohibitive. The fact that the rest of regression testing will be easier with tests is nice, but doesn't reduce the work required to a level where they can justify doing it.
Now you can (at least partially) avoid writing new code that wouldn't work on 3,
Once you're on 3, you can just run your code and see if it works on 3. You don't need tests to avoid writing code that works on 2 but not 3.
as well as gain the option of refactoring things to resolve compatibility - with lots of freedom to decide how much effort to spend on that if any.
I don't think resolving compatibility issues is optional...
That's quite a glorified view of tests. You can have the best test coverage in the world backed by a great CI culture but if porting something is a huge time investment, it may still be a huge time investment. Maybe there's one 2.x feature that you use almost everywhere that has been removed in 3.x and there's no simple way to replace it automatically.