<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Git - Lalit Maganti</title><link href="https://lalitm.com/tags/git/atom.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml"/><link href="https://lalitm.com/" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/><id>https://lalitm.com/tags/git/</id><updated>2026-07-14T01:51:47Z</updated><author><name>Lalit Maganti</name></author><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><entry><title>The git history command deserves more attention</title><link href="https://lalitm.com/post/git-history/" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/><id>https://lalitm.com/post/git-history/</id><published>2026-07-13T19:40:00+01:00</published><updated>2026-07-13T19:40:00+01:00</updated><summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Working with lots of changes in parallel on git can be painful. You end up
juggling branches and commits, and running scary &lt;code&gt;rebase -i&lt;/code&gt; commands that can
leave your tree in a half-broken state if you so much as sneeze.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj"&gt;&lt;code&gt;jj&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, an alternative to &lt;code&gt;git&lt;/code&gt;, gets discussed a
lot these days (&lt;a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692083"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;,
&lt;a href="https://lobste.rs/s/beqyuc/evan_s_jujutsu_tutorial"&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;,
&lt;a href="https://lobste.rs/s/fg3sgh/jj_tui_terminal_user_interface_jujutsu"&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;,
&lt;a href="https://lobste.rs/s/27dxjg/petty_reason_we_didn_t_end_up_using_jj"&gt;4&lt;/a&gt;) and is
often pitched as a solution. While I&amp;rsquo;m very sold on the &lt;em&gt;problems&lt;/em&gt; &lt;code&gt;jj&lt;/code&gt; is
trying to solve, the way it solves them hasn&amp;rsquo;t quite hit home with me. Every 3
months, for the last 1.5 years, I try it out for a few days, really trying to
make it part of my workflow but eventually I give up and go back to git.&lt;sup id="fnref:1"&gt;&lt;a href="#fn:1" class="footnote-ref" role="doc-noteref"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&amp;rsquo;s where &lt;code&gt;git history&lt;/code&gt; comes in. It&amp;rsquo;s an &lt;strong&gt;experimental&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;a href="https://git-scm.com/docs/git-history"&gt;command&lt;/a&gt; that arrived across two
releases,
&lt;a href="https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNotes/2.54.0.adoc"&gt;2.54&lt;/a&gt;
(April, &lt;code&gt;reword&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;split&lt;/code&gt; subcommands) and
&lt;a href="https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNotes/2.55.0.adoc"&gt;2.55&lt;/a&gt;
(June, &lt;code&gt;fixup&lt;/code&gt; subcommand). It got a flurry of attention on each release day,
and then, as far as I can tell, not much community discussion since. Which is a
shame, because IMO it already delivers several of the benefits people tout for
&lt;code&gt;jj&lt;/code&gt; without needing to switch your whole workflow. And the cool thing is that
it&amp;rsquo;s part of the core git distribution, so you can try it without installing
anything.&lt;/p&gt;</summary></entry></feed>