CLI is preferred from my point of view if only because it's the supported standard interface. VSCode's version control interface is reasonably close to a standard, and I love the tree view there. But generally I don't want to use random third party things because they either aren't consistent (i.e. now I have to learn what joe schmoe thinks a version control interface should be), or don't stick around long enough.
But I don't tell my team what they have to use as long as it's compatible. The last thing I want to do is try to teach them a different VCS when they've spent time learning how to get by with git.
I've told them about JJ, what I like, what pain points it solves for me. They are all adults, they can make their own decisions about it.
JJ is for me. It helps me unwind some rather elaborate problems we've had with rebasing, or dealing with conflicts from bringing some old support branch up to date, or back porting some particular thing. It helps me create pretty clean MRs, break things up into smaller reviewable chunks, etc. You can do all this with git, but it's easier in JJ. In particular if you have to do shuffling and rebasing and conflict arise. JJ lets you solve conflicts asynchronously to rebasing. Git stops you in your tracks. There's some rerere thing that is supposed to help but give me a break. Git's a train wreck of dumpster fires. But it's still been basically better than everything else since svn.
Until JJ IMHO. Valid arguments can be made for other things like maybe mercurial or even fossil. But JJ is the most pain-free vcs evolution I've seen.
Mercurial's big failing was making too many critical things optional. It's the same screw-up riscv is going through now in the chip architecture space.
reply