Evan Mesterhazy

I'm starting to think there's no perfect solution here since there are many possible workflows. I still think that `@-` is the "lesser of two evils", but that's as much...

Thanks for the feedback. I'll add support for `jj new` as well. Just to be clear, this means that if `jj new` is run on revision `xyz` and one of...

@martinvonz Hi everyone, sorry for the delay. This is ready for review now. A couple of notes: 1. The config setting is called `experimental-advance-branches`. If we decide to stabilize this...

Thanks Yuya for all of the helpful feedback. I'll go through your comments and address one by one.

I've made changes and resolved most of the conversations based on your comments. Please take another look. Thanks!

A `--leave-message` or `--keep-message` option for split seems like the better way to go for the reasons Martin gave. It basically sounds like you're looking for a non-interactive `jj split`,...

I like the description prompt since by default you're encouraged and able to describe the separate commits right after you've chosen the diffs they contain. Waiting to do it after...

> Personally I would like to see jj split not prompt for a message unless -i/--interactive was explicitly passed, including for multi-way splits. Why? If you've split the commit into...

Sorry, I am trying to ask why that is preferable as a default compared to editing the message interactively. Deferring to later makes it easier to forget what's included in...

> I don't think it's good practice to make certain invocations of jj split interactive based on the rest of the arguments. Consistency is good, but isn't it consistently interactive...