I mean none of the options are great, imo.

- "commit" is overloaded with git, and jj still uses commits for other things under the hood. - "patch id" is overloaded with patch files, and jj still uses git's snapshots, not patches (unlike darcs/pijul, iiuc) - "patch revision id" isn't bad, but it's a bit wordy - "change id" just seems vague, since it's unclear where one change begins and another ends

"revision" at least captures the idea that you are revising the same piece of functionality, but then you might expect each snapshot/commit to be a different revision, and not have the same ID, which also isn't quite right.

I am sad I read this, because patch is perfect, but I doubt they will change the language again.

patch sounds too specific... like an actual patch file tied to the actual contents of the patch.

change is probably the right word, you want to change something, the exact operations of the change (multiple revisions of different patches) can evolve over time.

Maybe because I have never used an actual patch file, but patch just feels right to me. As an end user, a patch is an intentional delta blob resulting in some difference to the software. Writing software is just organizing those deltas. If I need to cherry pick between branches, pulling a patch from one to another feels more right than “changes” as a collective object.

Oh well, naming things is hard.