> I can then use that history to create a sane method for me to create git commits and do other thing without having to worry too much.

It's easier than that. Your jj commits are the commits that will be pushed - not all the individual git commits.

Conceptually, think of two types of commits: jj and git. When you do `jj new`, you are creating a jj commit.[1] While working on this, every time you run a command like `jj status`, it will make a git commit, without changing the jj commit. When you're done with the feature and type `jj new` again, you now have two jj commits, and many, many git commits.[2] When you do a `jj git push`, it will send the jj commits, without all the messiness of the git commits.

Technically, the above is inaccurate. It's all git commits anyway. However, jj lets you distinguish between the two types of commits: I call them coarse and fine grained commits. Or you can think hierarchically: Each jj commit has its own git repository to track the changes while you worked on the feature.[2]

So no, you don't need to intentionally use that history to create git commits. jj should handle it all for you.

I think you should go back to it and play some more :-)

[1] changeset, whatever you want to call it.

[2] Again - inaccurate, but useful.