It's ok to force-push a branch that only you have worked on (and even in the case of others working on the same branch it can be fine as long as you communicate with them)
This is something you have to generally handle manually since absorb won't squash hunks with ambiguous targets, but I typically stack these branches and accept the dependency. I have had instances where this has backfired a little bit re: ordering but thankfully with JJ and the very patient little man in my computer named Codex it's easy to reorder them and end up with the same diff
The mega merge wouldn't handle that based on the way the article shows. You COULD have a revset that includes stacked changes, though. That does work and is what I currently do.
Where E stacks on C and D stacks atop A. In the case above, A-E are revsets of either 1 or more commits. JJ doesn't care if they are or not. You'd generally bookmark the revset on the final "commit" as the pointer.
/ features/add-widgets
/ / features/add-widget-integration
/ A - D \
-- B ----- - Megamerge
\ C - E /
\ \ feature/add-new-page
\ feature/rework-navigation
In the example above, let's say you rework the navigation. You could have it exist alongside the navigation rework, but changes are you don't want to do the work twice. You just say "hey, this depends on the nav rework" and so it's there inside of the repo.
The thing is there is another way to do this where you end up with 4 different parents in a megamerge and your nav rework touches the megamerge and your new page is yet another revset is just a fork off of it. But yeah... JJ gives you a lot of flexibility in this manner.
This is true but I don't think the downvotes are "fake" though. There's just a whole lot of people who truly believe they are Making the World a Better Place Through Capitalism
Maybe this is just a symptom of my screen addiction, but I keep a close eye on this site for a lot of the day. I’ve noticed a pattern where my commments initially get one or two upvotes (within the first 5-10 minutes of posting) but will then immediately get a greater than or equal amount of downvotes very quickly. It happens consistently enough that I’ve noticed a pattern. The upvotes happen sporadically and the downvotes happen simultaneously.
Why not just wrap the tool so that when the LLM uses it, the wrapper enforces the OTP? The LLM doesn't even need to know that the tool is protected. What is the benefit of having the LLM enter the OTP?
Yes could do that, I think it makes things more complex though because then the tool is less plug and play and the thing calling it would need to handle it
The interesting aspect of the ongoing tests I feel is seeing how models can plan out an image directly using SVG primatives solely through reasoning (code-to-code). If they have a reference then it's a different type of challenge (optimizing for a trace).
Other comments suggest that the Agents.md is read into the system prompt and never leaves the context. But it's better to avoid excessive context regardless
It's ok to force-push a branch that only you have worked on (and even in the case of others working on the same branch it can be fine as long as you communicate with them)
reply