It's very slow to remove non-heads from the set of heads every time we
add an head. For example, in the git.git repo, a no-op `jj git import`
takes ~15 s. This patch changes makes us just mark the set of heads
dirty when a commit has been added and then we remove non-heads when
needed. That cuts down the `jj git import` time to ~200 ms.
It's useful to know which commit is checked out in the underlying Git
repo (if there is one), so let's show that. This patch indicates that
commit with `HEAD@git` in the log output. It's probably not very
useful when the Git repo is "internal" (i.e. stored inside `.jj/`),
because then it's unlikely to change often. I therefore considered not
showing it when the Git repo is internal. However, it turned out that
`HEAD` points to a non-existent branch in the repo I use, so it won't
get imported anyway (by the function added in the previous patch). We
can always review this decision later.
This is part of #44.
This patch adds a place for tracking the current `HEAD` commit in the
underlying Git repo. It updates `git::import_refs()` to record it. We
don't use it anywhere yet.
This is part of #44.
If nothing changed in a transaction, it's rarely useful to commit it,
so let's avoid that. For example, if you run `jj git import` without
changing the anything in the Git repo, we now just print "Nothing
changed.".
The `Repo` doesn't do anything with the `WorkingCopy` except keeping a
reference to it for its users to use. In fact, the entire lib crate
doesn't do antyhing with the `WorkingCopy`. It therefore seems simpler
to have the users of the crate manage the `WorkingCopy` instance. This
patch does that by letting `Workspace` own it. By not keeping an
instance in `Repo`, which is `Sync`, we can also drop the
`Arc<Mutex<>>` wrapping.
I left `Repo::working_copy()` for convenience for now, but now it
creates a new instance every time. It's only used in tests.
This further decoupling should help us add support for multiple
working copies (#13).
Having a concept of a "workspace" will be useful for adding support
for multiple workspaces (#13). You can think of the "workspace" as a
repo combined with a working copy. A workspace corresponds 1:1 with a
`.jj/` directory. It's pretty close to what other VCS simply call a
"repo", but I've ended up using the word "repo" for what Git calls a
"bare repo".
Since the working copy can now handle conflicts, we don't need to
materialize conflicts when checking out a commit.
Before this patch, we used to create a new commit on top whenever we
checked out a commit with conflicts. That new commit was intended just
for resolving the conflicts. The typical workflow was the resolve the
conflicts and then amend. To use the same workflow after this patch,
one needs to explicitly create a new commit on top with `jj new` after
checking out a commit with conflict.
If you rewrite a commit that's also available on some remote, you'll
currently see both the old version and the new version in the view,
which means they're divergent. They're not logically divergent (the
rewritten version should replace the old version), so this is a UX
bug. I think it indicates that the set of current heads should be
redefined to be the *desired* heads. That's also what I had suspected
in the TODO removed by this change. I think another indication that
we should hide the old heads even if they have e.g. a remote branch
pointing to them is that we don't want them to be rebased if we
rewrite an ancestor.
So that's what I decided to do: let the view's heads be the desired
heads. The user can still define revsets for showing non-current
commits pointed to by e.g. remote branches.
I think this is just cleaner, and it gives us room to put other
store-related data in the `.jj/store/` directory. I may want to use
that place for writing the metadata we currently write in Git notes
(#7).
It's been a lot of work, but now we're finally able to remove the
`Evolution` state! `jj obslog` still works as before (it just walks
the predecessor pointers).
The removal of hidden heads was just there to help with the transition
away from evolution (#32). Now that we no longer depend on evolution
for removing old heads, we can remove the hack.
I'm going to teach `DescendantRebaser` to also update local branches
pointing to rewritten commits, taking over the responsibility from
`rewrite::update_branches_after_rewrite()`. For commits that have been
rewritten as multiple new commits (divergent, not split), that
function makes local branches pointing to the old commit point to all
the new commits. To replicate that behavior in `DescendantRebaser`, it
needs to know about divergent changes. This change addresses that.
I recently made the CLI remove hidden heads when a transaction is
committed (38474a9). Let's move that to `Transaction::commit()`, so
the library crate becomes more similar to how the CLI behaves and more
similar to our evolution-less future (#32).
Same reasoning as the previous change.
With this change, I believe we now record all rewritten and abandoned
commits correctly. We're now almost ready to switch the CLI away from
using evolution for automatically rebasing commits.
When we remove support for evolution (#32), we need to still make it
easy for application code to rebase descendants of rewritten and
abandoned commits. The way applications currently do that is by using
e.g. `CommitBuilder::for_rewrite_from()` followed by
`evolve_orphans()`. This patch puts some bookkeeping in `MutableRepo`
for rewritten and abandoned commits, along with a function for
creating a `DescendantRebaser` based on it. I'll then make
`CommitBuilder` record rewritten commits there.
The command's help text says "Abandon a revision", which I think is a
good indication that the command's name should be `abandon`. This
patch renames the command and other user-facing occurrences of the
word. The remaining occurrences should be removed when I remove
support for evolution.
Now that we have native branches, we can make `jj git push` only be
about pushing a branch to a remote branch with the same name.
We may want to add back support for the more advanced case of pushing
an arbitrary commit to an arbitrary branch later, but let's get the
common case simplified first.
I've finally decided to copy Git's branching model (issue #21), except
that I'm letting the name identify the branch across
remotes. Actually, now that I think about, that makes them more like
Mercurial's "bookmarks". Each branch will record the commit it points
to locally, as well as the commits it points to on each remote (as far
as the repo knows, of course). Those records are effectively the same
thing as Git's "remote-tracking branches"; the difference is that we
consider them the same branch. Consequently, when you pull a new
branch from a remote, we'll create that branch locally.
For example, if you pull branch "main" from a remote called "origin",
that will result in a local branch called "main", and also a record of
the position on the remote, which we'll show as "main@origin" in the
CLI (not part of this commit). If you then update the branch locally
and also pull a new target for it from "origin", the local "main"
branch will be divergent. I plan to make it so that pushing "main"
will update the remote's "main" iff it was currently at "main@origin"
(i.e. like using Git's `git push --force-with-lease`).
This commit adds a place to store information about branches in the
view model. The existing git_refs field will be used as input for the
branch information. For example, we can use it to tell if
"refs/heads/main" has changed and how it has changed. We will then use
that ref diff to update our own record of the "main" branch. That will
come later. In order to let git_refs take a back seat, I've also added
tags (like Git's lightweight tags) to the model in this commit.
I haven't ruled out *also* having some more persistent type of
branches (like Mercurials branches or topics).
There were some tests that discarded a transaction only because it
used to be easier to do that than to commit and reload the repo. We
get the new repo back when we commit the transaction these days, so
now it's often easier to commit the transaction instead.
When there are two concurrent operations, we would resolve conflicting
updates of git refs quite arbitrarily before this change. This change
introduces a new `refs` module with a function for doing a 3-way merge
of ref targets. For example, if both sides moved a ref forward but by
different amounts, we pick the descendant-most target. If we can't
resolve it, we leave it as a conflict. That's fine to do for git refs
because they can be resolved by simply running `jj git refresh` to
import refs again (the underlying git repo is the source of truth).
As with the previous change, I'm doing this now because mostly because
it is a good stepping stone towards branch support (issue #21). We'll
soon use the same 3-way merging for updating the local branch
definition (once we add that) when a branch changes in the git repo or
on a remote.
This adds support for having conflicting git refs in the view, but we
never create conflicts yet. The `git_refs()` revset includes all "add"
sides of any conflicts. Similarly `origin/main` (for example) resolves
to all "adds" if it's conflicted (meaning that `jj co origin/main` and
many other commands will error out if `origin/main` is
conflicted). The `git_refs` template renders the reference for all
"adds" and adds a "?" as suffix for conflicted refs.
The reason I'm adding this now is not because it's high priority on
its own (it's likely extremely uncommon to run two concurrent `jj git
refresh` and *also* update refs in the underlying git repo at the same
time) but because it's a building block for the branch support I've
planned (issue #21).
The two types have become very similar so it doesn't seem that there's
any point in having two types. We should probably do the same with
`ReadonlyEvolution` and `MutableEvolution`.
I've wanted the API to look like this for a while. It seems like a
good API to me. It means that the caller won't have to reload the repo
after committing. The cost seems relatively small. It involves copying
potentially a lot of data in memory (at least the View object), but it
shouldn't involve reading from disk or any other processing. To reduce
the amount of data to copy, it may be worth switching to persistent
data types. I've also wanted to do that for the copying we do when
start a transaction.
I couldn't measure any slowdown caused by this change.
