`graphlog::Edge` is used somewhat inconsistently. I've replaced `Edge::Present`
with two distinct `Edge::Direct` and `Edge::Indirect` which simplifies the
construction of the enum.
This adds a config to render a synthetic node with a "(elided
revisions)" description for elided segments of the graph.
I didn't add any templating support for the elided nodes because I'm
not sure how we would want that to work. In particular, I don't know
what `commit_id` and most other keywords should return for elided
revisions.
Users who edit non-head commits usually expect `jj next/prev` to
continue to edit the next/previous commit, so let's make that the
default behavior. This should not confuse users who don't edit
non-head commits since they will simply not be in this state. My main
concern is that doing `jj next; jj prev` will now usually take you
back to the previous commit, but not if you started on the parent of a
head commit.
If the operation corresponding to a workspace is missing for some reason
(the specific situation in the test in this commit is that an operation
was abandoned and garbage-collected from another workspace), currently,
jj fails with a 255 error code. Teach jj a way to recover from this
situation.
When jj detects such a situation, it prints a message and stops
operation, similar to when a workspace is stale. The message tells the
user what command to run.
When that command is run, jj loads the repo at the @ operation (instead
of the operation of the workspace), creates a new commit on the @
commit with an empty tree, and then proceeds as usual - in particular,
including the auto-snapshotting of the working tree, which creates
another commit that obsoletes the newly created commit.
There are several design points I considered.
1) Whether the recovery should be automatic, or (as in this commit)
manual in that the user should be prompted to run a command. The user
might prefer to recover in another way (e.g. by simply deleting the
workspace) and this situation is (hopefully) rare enough that I think
it's better to prompt the user.
2) Which command the user should be prompted to run (and thus, which
command should be taught to perform the recovery). I chose "workspace
update-stale" because the circumstances are very similar to it: it's
symptom is that the regular jj operation is blocked somewhere at the
beginning, and "workspace update-stale" already does some special work
before the blockage (this commit adds more of such special work). But it
might be better for something more explicitly named, or even a sequence
of commands (e.g. "create a new operation that becomes @ that no
workspace points to", "low-level command that makes a workspace point to
the operation @") but I can see how this can be unnecessarily confusing
for the user.
3) How we recover. I can think of several ways:
a) Always create a commit, and allow the automatic snapshotting to
create another commit that obsoletes this commit.
b) Create a commit but somehow teach the automatic snapshotting to
replace the created commit in-place (so it has no predecessor, as viewed
in "obslog").
c) Do either a) or b), with the added improvement that if there is no
diff between the newly created commit and the former @, to behave as if
no new commit was created (@ remains as the former @).
I chose a) since it was the simplest and most easily reasoned about,
which I think is the best way to go when recovering from a rare
situation.
A subsequent commit will need to handle the return value of
check_stale_working_copy() in 3 different ways, so a boolean will soon
not be sufficient. In preparation for that, inline is_stale() into its
caller, converting it into a "match".
It tries to push all deleted branches, but can only succeed for tracked
branches.
Closes#2946, as there's probably no need to have `--deleted --tracked`
that would only be different in that the warnings wouldn't be printed.
Thanks to @yuja for pointing this out.
Our virtual file system at Google (CitC) would like to know the commit
so it can scan backwards and find the closest mainline tree based on
it. Since we always record an operation id (which resolves to a
working-copy commit) when we write the working-copy state, it doesn't
seem like a restriction to require a commit.
This reimplements the change 9faa4670d53f "cli: on init, import git refs prior
to importing HEAD." Initialization is special because the HEAD ref isn't
available to jj yet, and there is an empty working-copy commit.
The initialization function could be refactored to go through the common code
path, but I think doing that would make future improvement harder. We might
want to initialize tracking branches based on .git/config for example.
Fixes#2942
This initializes a git backed repo.
* It does the same thing as `jj init --git` except that it
has a --colocated flag to explicitly specify that we want
the .git repo to be side-by-side the .jj repo in the working
directory.
* `jj init --git` will keep the current behaviour and will not
be able to create colocated git backed repos.
* Update test snapshots.
A few minor updates after 0f27152 AKA #2945
Specifically, I tried to change the help text so that it looks better as
Markdown. I also reworded the deprecation warning and added a hint.
this has two main advantages:
- it makes it clear that the shells are mutually exclusive
- it allows us to extend the command with shell-specific options in the future if necessary
as a happy accident, it also adds support for `elvish` and `powershell`.
for backwards compatibility, this also keeps the existing options as hidden flags.
i am not super happy with how the new help looks; the instructions for setting up the shell are
squished together and IMO a little harder to read. i'm open to suggestions.
it's somewhat confusing to me that the `--bash` flag exists at all, since it does nothing - maybe it makes sense to give a hard error? or just remove the flag?
but in any case, it seems good to document the existing behavior.
Previously, `jj git push; jj git push` would tell the user that "No
branches point to the specified revisions.". I found this confusing,
even though strictly speaking it is correct (as the default revset only
considers revisions that haven't been pushed to the remote).
Closes#2241
Summary: As discussed in Discord, on GitHub, and elsewhere, this change
deprecates the use of `jj merge` and suggests users use `jj new` exclusively
instead. `merge` isn't completely unfit as a name; but we think it obscures
the generality of `new` and we want people to use it instead.
To further drive the bit home, by default, `jj merge` is now hidden. This will
hopefully stop new users from running into it.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I94938aca9d3e2aa12d1394a5fbc58acce3185b56
Summary: As discussed in Discord, on GitHub, and elsewhere, this change
deprecates the use of `jj checkout` and suggests users use `jj new` exclusively
instead. The verb `checkout` is a relic of a bygone era the — days of RCS
file locking, before 3-way merge — and is not a good, fitting name for the
functionality it provides.
To further drive the bit home, by default, `jj checkout` (and `jj co`) is now
hidden. This will hopefully stop new users from running into it.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I7a1adfc9168fce1f25cf5d4c4c313304769e41a1
* Move git_init() to cli/src/commands/git.rs and call it from there.
* Move print_trackable_remote_branches into cli_util since it's not git specific,
but would apply to any backend that supports remote branches.
* A no-op change. A follow up PR will make use of this.
* Create a git_init() function in cli/src/commands/init.rs where all git related work is done.
This function will be moved to cli/src/commands/git.rs in a subsequent PR.
I'm going to rewrite the error output to print source chain one by one.
The "{message}: {err}" pattern is wrapped in an error struct. InternalError
variant could be a { message, source } pair, but not all errors need an
additional message. This will also apply to UserError.
This prevents rust doctests from trying to compile the code blocks.
I don't think we use doctests much or at all, but I'd like
`cargo insta test --test-runner nextest --accept --workspace`
to pass.
Unfortunately, this affects the output of `jj help` as well, but I
can't think of a workaround for that.
This uses the [`clap-markdown`] library. It's not very flexible, but seems to
work. Its implementation is not difficult. If needed, we could later
reimplement the part that iterates over all subcommands and have a different
output (e.g., the boring version of each help text inside its own code block,
or a different file per subcommand, or some fancy template in handlebars or
another rust-supported templating language). I don't want to do it right now,
though.
The library does turn out to have some annoying bugs, e.g.
https://github.com/ConnorGray/clap-markdown/pull/18, but I think that's not a
deal-braker. The fix seems to be 3 lines; if the fix doesn't get merged soon, we
could vendor the library maybe?
[`clap-markdown`]: https://docs.rs/clap-markdown/latest/clap_markdown/
GitBackend::gc() will need to check if a commit is reachable from any
historical operations. This could be calculated from the view and commit
objects, but the Index will do a better job.
The "::HEAD" set is usually smaller than "::git_refs". If these sets were
imported in that order, "HEAD..git_refs" commits would be indexed on top of
the "::HEAD" commits. It's not a problem, but undesirable.
I'm going to make WorkspaceCommandHelper::maybe_snapshot() snapshot the working
copy before importing refs. git::import_some_refs() can rebase the working copy
branch and therefore @ can be moved. git::import_head() doesn't, and it should
be invoked before snapshotting.
git::import_head() is inserted to some of the git:import_refs() callers where
HEAD seems to matter. I feel it's a bit odd that the HEAD ref is imported to
non-colocated repo, but "jj init --git-repo" relies on that, and I think the
existence of HEAD@git is harmless. It's merely a ref to the revision checked
out somewhere else.
This is a convenient command, for scripting things like `cd $(jj root)
&& do something`, and it seems better to allow people to find it
before they learn about workspaces.
