xintron

Based on personal experience, seeing how Opus 4.6 still provides better (more nuanced, less totalitarian) answers than 4.7 - it's difficult to get exited for 4.8. Is this another "money grab" from Anthropic? Similar output between 4.6 and 4.7 yet 40x tokens. What's the value proposition from 4.8?

I see your point, but this feels like a difference in workflow philosophy, especially with AI-assisted coding becoming more common.

With jj, your working copy is always a commit. This encourages a "commit often and messy, clean up later" approach. You can rapidly iterate with or without AI, letting jj automatically save every change without stopping to craft perfect atomic commits.

Later, you use a simple jj squash to combine all those small, iterative changes into logical, clean commits before you share it. The atomicity is created retroactively, not upfront. For a finely-tuned magit workflow this might feel wrong, but for rapid, exploratory and AI-driven iteration, it's a more natural fit.

I know they've talked about implement something similar. Since the Open letter to GitHub a lot have changed and I wouldn't be surprised to see GitHub support most of what Gerrit has (and more) in a near future.

We've been using it since May 2015. Vetos work well for us. We push new releases every week and often there are dependencies between the reviews (front-end waiting for a vetoed back-end review) which results in them being a non-issue (discussions happen frequently and updates are coming in quickly).

For HTML generation Markdown is much easier for most people to get used to and understand. When needing to provide output in various formats reST is more suited but also have a bit of a steeper learning curve.

It depends on what you're doing. For documentation I'm always running reST but for articles for sites etc (with a static site generator) I will turn to Markdown.