> I wonder how this behave if commits get randomly pushed to origin
You would expect the push to fail in the normal way, as if you had manually done the rebase, because your commit history may have diverged. That being said, I don't think this happens much in practice: the automatic rebases are typically for explicit history-rewriting operations that users tend to only do on their local work. If a user prefers to use a "no-rewriting" workflow, then they can certainly do so by simply not issuing the history-rewriting commands.
> anonymous branches are destined to be pushed remotely (to be reviewed and merged) and there is no local merge as far as I can tell, you can name these branches but no "merge back to development branch once done".
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can do `jj merge` in a similar way to `git merge`, or you can do a rebase workflow.
You would expect the push to fail in the normal way, as if you had manually done the rebase, because your commit history may have diverged. That being said, I don't think this happens much in practice: the automatic rebases are typically for explicit history-rewriting operations that users tend to only do on their local work. If a user prefers to use a "no-rewriting" workflow, then they can certainly do so by simply not issuing the history-rewriting commands.
> anonymous branches are destined to be pushed remotely (to be reviewed and merged) and there is no local merge as far as I can tell, you can name these branches but no "merge back to development branch once done".
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can do `jj merge` in a similar way to `git merge`, or you can do a rebase workflow.