News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by syshyk on Thursday November 12, 2026 @10:51AM (#50469397)
Wasn't this a think before_ai? Enough people are using IDEs which handle this for them. I still have to check a few commands now and then.

Though ideally interviewers should appreciate this - unless its a hard requirement you do it by hand day to day - the rest of us can look this up quick enough.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by saghm on Thursday November 12, 2026 @11:23AM (#50469901)
At previous jobs, I was the one coworkers would come to when they had messy git problems and needed help cleaning them up. I've put in the hours in the past to learn how to do all of that, and then later forgotten it because it's just not worth it anymore. I switched to jj a few years ago and had the majority of the annoying rebase issues go away, and whatever's left goes into my LLM to spit out a potential solution that I can then manually tweak if the result isn't perfect.

My OS professor in college once told us about what he considered the difference between "knowledge" and "information", with "knowledge" being the underlying facts about how something works and "information" being the terminology/labeling/bucketing/etc. of how to refer to it. The point he made was that knowledge was more important than information, and that he would try to test us on knowledge rather than information. To me, knowing how the underlying version control model works and what "shapes" you might want to make with it is useful knowledge. The exact set of commands, interactions with an IDE, or specific prompts you can use to ask an LLM to produce them is information. Arguably the entire benefit of LLMs is that you can ask them to do things even if you don't have the exact information memorized; if you can describe it in a rigorous way, and recognize whether what it gives you as an output fits that or not, you don't need to know any of the actual information of how to do it manually.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by PorciiVorbesc on Thursday November 12, 2026 @05:28PM (#50475261)
>I switched to jj a few years ago and had the majority of the annoying rebase issues go away

jj? what's that?

I wish better names would be chosen by the tech industry, that would make search engine discoverability easier.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by mjdiloreto on Thursday November 12, 2026 @05:36PM (#50475381)
Jujutsu, another VCS. It is popular enough to not require introduction on HN, or so the parent must have thought.
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by PorciiVorbesc on Thursday November 12, 2026 @05:39PM (#50475425)
>It is popular enough

WHERE?! This is the first time I'm hearing about it.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by hatthew on Thursday November 12, 2026 @05:58PM (#50475623)
[delayed]
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by gspetr on Thursday November 12, 2026 @06:44PM (#50476074)
>I wish these products had names that were easily googleable.

They... are?

https://www.google.com/search?aep=11&udm=50&q=should+you+swi...

You can't google for "X" like it's early stack overflow days, but adding the minimum context "X that has something to do with Y" works 99% of the time.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by zahlman on Thursday November 12, 2026 @10:22PM (#50477784)
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by saghm on Thursday November 12, 2026 @09:19PM (#50477252)
Based on "or so the parent must have thought", I don't think they were being fully serious when they said it was "popular enough". I've seen it brought up pretty much in every conversation around git on Hacker News for the past year or so, and I did make an assumption that most people reading several comments deep into a debate about how important it is to memorize the exact incantations of git commands would be familiar with it. It's largely not relevant to my overall point though; you could replace it with "a different git tool" and it would not really change what I was saying.
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by OJFord on Friday November 13, 2026 @04:42AM (#50480813)
Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by filoeleven on Thursday November 12, 2026 @06:31PM (#50475930)
I hadn't heard of this either, but they have an interesting reason for the name:

> The command-line tool is called jj for now because it's easy to type and easy to replace (rare in English). The project is called "Jujutsu" because it matches "jj".

https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by ozim on Thursday November 12, 2026 @05:36PM (#50475376)
Problem for me is that unless I see someone being proficient at using git commands to rebase, merge etc. … I have hard time believing they understand underlying model. Even if someone knows all the right words.

There is no way to verify it just by talking.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by 8note on Thursday November 12, 2026 @06:33PM (#50475947)
i guess your difficulty is that half the commands i can write off hand and the other half i cant, and i only really care to understand the parts of the data model that i actually touch.

like, i dont really need to know all the stash details when i only stash one thing at a time, very temporarily

i also dont really care to know all the origin and remote definitions stuff when i only touch it once per project or so.

i could certainly draw graphs of what different git repos look like, but what makes it salient to know the rest of the details unless im actually building git itself? if youre using every git feature regularly you're probably doing something wrong

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by zahlman on Thursday November 12, 2026 @10:20PM (#50477761)
> like, i dont really need to know all the stash details when i only stash one thing at a time, very temporarily

If I were hiring, I would care about whether you can `git help stash`, skim over it (bonus points for actually using the pager competently) and figure out what you need to do.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by ozim on Thursday November 12, 2026 @11:26PM (#50478322)
Your comment hits the nail on what I wrote.

I couldn’t care less about stashing commands.

I do care about … if someone understands origins and not by definition because developer needs to know what is his local version and what is on the server and how those two affect each other. Bonus points if they understand server is not special in Git and their colleagues copy on their laptop can be origin as well.

Drawing graphs of what different repos look like? That’s irrelevant.

Irrelevant if one understands that Git uses DAG and is content addressable store.

You see someone might know those hard words but when working daily with Git reasoning about rebase or merge, cleaning up their own work with interactive rebase, making pull/merge requests or resolving conflicts it is much easier if one knows what is local what is remote and how Git stores data.

You also learn it once. In my 15 years of using Git I basically didn’t learn much new commands but having mental model of how it works was my tool to fix any problems other people had. Knowing commands or definitions is secondary.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by WalterBright on Thursday November 12, 2026 @08:53PM (#50477089)
I used to go to stackoverflow to resolve issues with git. The trouble was, I'd get 15 answers, all different, all saying "this might work", "try this", "try that".

Now I just ask google, and I get a straightforward "do this", and it works.

Re:Jane Street – Our software engineering interviews are cha... by zahlman on Thursday November 12, 2026 @10:15PM (#50477720)
That's largely because the OP couldn't clearly describe a specific situation to ask about (the question underlying the problem, but also a clearly recognizable, reproducible example); and solving your problem might depend on things that are different in your setup vs. the OP's.

That's the thing, though. Stack Overflow is not and never was intended to solve your problem, nor to solve the OP's problem. It was intended to answer questions. It was your responsibility, both as someone posting a question and as someone reading the Q&A later, to adapt knowledge to your circumstances. That's why they're called questions and answers, and are not called problems and solutions.

People who use a web site to get a solution to a problem are looking for a help desk, or a forum. Stack Overflow was specifically created to be not that, and that choice was specifically motivated by the frustration people had with trying to search those kinds of sites for information, and the frustration that experts had with trying to help people (for free) in that kind of environment.