It's not anywhere near making PR ready (and never will be) but here is the branch [1]. I make no promises on it's functionality, and I only periodically rebase Herdr's latest over it. I have been using the jj change for awhile though with no issues. So YMMV.
You can also see the combined output of all my changes at [2], which Jujutsu makes so damn easy via megamerges.
> You're getting confused between lifetimes (the static analysis that prevents use after free and similar errors) and lifecycles (more commonly discussed under the heading of ownership) which determines when objects (and thus memory) are allocated and deallocated.
Ownership is
That's a semantic distinction which does not matter in the point OP is making. And contrasting rust static approach to general GC.
I felt the same for a while after switching to jj. I think using the word "commit" in jj is creating a lot of confusing. The snapshotting is closer to auto-save in your favorite editor. In does not change your ability to version and save your work. It's just a savety net for quick undo
The one thing I do like about git’s staging area is that it’s truly useful for reviewing a bunch of changes (bulk actions or automated tools). Go over the change chunk by chunk and stage what matters (magit makes that extremely quick.
That could be probably done by jj. But the git’s way is already fine for me.
Yes, jj does make this very nice and easy. It’s the same idea as git, except that “the index” is just another anonymous change, not a distinct feature.
> This is meant to be mitigating? What is this thought process? Who in their right mind is like "okay, a group of people broke into your home at night but your state shouldn't have been so hard on them for what ensued because akshually it was part of a whole nationwide trend at the time."
You analogy doesn't not hold, and in manyways point at the root of the issue.
The point was to show that harsher punishment did not seems to result in meaningful effect on crime stats.
It's fine to want harsher sentencing for some kind of emotional fuffilement, let's just not pretend that is helping in any otherways.
> Whereas someone who has committed 30 petty thefts and then gets arrested, locked in a cage, and guarded by armed agents of the state, is extremely unlikely to commit another theft as long as he remains locked in the cage.
How does that help, if after incarceration that person become a much hardened criminal both because of the lack meaning pathway to integration, and you know spending years locked up with the worst of society.
> but we don't really have a good understanding of what specific people can and cannot be rehabilitated, or how to go about actually effectively doing the rehabilitation.
The theory is that people commit most of their crimes in their prime age of ~15-30. If you lock someone until out of that age, their crime rate will go down on their own. Whether or not this is cruel is another discussion.
This is actually a problem for rehabilitation studies, since now they have to sanitize this effect out of their data on how much rehabilitation treatment actuality works. This and other flaws have tainted some claims that a rehabilitation process is successful.
You my friend made my day.
reply