Since `Conflict<T>` can also represent a non-conflict state (a single
term), `Merge<T>` seems like better name.
Thanks to @ilyagr for the suggestion in
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/1774#discussion_r1257547709
Sorry about the churn. It would have been better if I thought of this
name before I introduced `Conflict<T>`.
Tree-level conflicts (#1624) will be stored as multiple trees
associated with a single commit. This patch adds support for that in
`backend::Commit` and in the backends.
When the Git backend writes a tree conflict, it creates a special root
tree for the commit. That tree has only the individual trees from the
conflict as subtrees. That way we prevent the trees from getting
GC'd. We also write the tree ids to the extra metadata table
(i.e. outside of the Git repo) so we don't need to load the tree
object to determine if there are conflicts.
I also added new flag to `backend::Commit` indicating whether the
commit is a new-style commit (with support for tree-level
conflicts). That will help with the migration. We will remove it once
we no longer care about old repos. When the flag is set, we know that
a commit with a single tree cannot have conflicts. When the flag is
not set, it's an old-style commit where we have to walk the whole tree
to find conflicts.
It was convenient that what the git backend stored in its "extras"
table is exactly a subset of the fields that local backend stores, but
it's bit ugly and limiting. For example, it makes it possible to
populate the `author` field in the git extras, but that would have no
effect. It's better that it's not possible to do that (we store the
author field in the git commit, of course).
What made me notice this now was that I'm working on tree-level
conflicts (#1624) and I'm thinking of adding a field to the git extras
saying "this commit has single tree, but it's still a new-style
commit", so we can know not to walking such trees to find path-level
conflicts. That's only needed for the git backend because we don't
care about compatibility for the local backend.
The internal backend at Google doesn't let you write any value you
want for in the committer field. The `Store` type still caches the
value it attempted to write, which gets a little weird when the
written value is not what we tried to write. We should use the value
the backend actually wrote. However, we don't know if the backend
changed anything without reading the value back, which is often
wasteful. This commit changes the API to return the written value.
I only changed the signature of `write_commit()` for now. Maybe we
should make a similar change to `write_tree()`.
This has several advantages:
* Makes it possible to downcast to non-Git custom backends (might be
useful at Google, but we haven't needed it yet)
* Lets us access more specific functionality on the `GitBackend`,
making it possible to access the `git2::Repository` without
creating a copy of it.
* Removes the dependency on Git from the backend
It took a while before I realized that conflicts could be modeled as
simple algebraic expressions with positive and negative terms (they
were modeled as recursive 3-way conflicts initially). We've been
thinking of them that way for a while now, so let's make the
`ConflictPart` name match that model.
Our internal backend at Google uses a 32-byte change id, so I'd like
to make the backend able to decide the length. To start with, let's
make the backend able to decide what the root change id should
be. That's consistent with how we already let the backend decide what
the root commit id should be.
The function is currently only about the length of commit IDs, so
let's clarify that. I'm going to add another function for the length
of change IDs next. I don't know if we're going to care about lengths
of other hashes in the future. We might even be able to remove the
current restriction that all commit IDs and all change IDs have the
same length.
I needed this in the course of debugging an error. Before this commit, the error looked like this:
```
Error: Unexpected error from backend: Object not found
```
After this commit, it looks like this:
```
Error: Unexpected error from backend: Object with CommitId 8f59646bc9bb6bb44b5624f1248f4a708f37003c not found: object not found - no match for id (8f59646bc9bb6bb44b5624f1248f4a708f37003c); class=Odb (9); code=NotFound (-3)
```
The Protobuf team at Google decided to let us use Protobufs internally
after all. That will make things a little easier for us with the
Google-internal adapations, and the `protobuf` crate is noticeably
faster than the `thrift` crate.
This effectively rolls back commit 5b10c9aa0a62. I resolved some
conflicts caused by the rename from `NormalFile` to `File`. I also
kept the changelog entry, but I changed it to say that the hashing
scheme has changed (not the format), but since the hashes are just
used for identity, existing repos should still work.
Let's acknowledge everyone's contributions by replacing "Google LLC"
in the copyright header by "The Jujutsu Authors". If I understand
correctly, it won't have any legal effect, but maybe it still helps
reduce concerns from contributors (though I haven't heard any
concerns).
Google employees can read about Google's policy at
go/releasing/contributions#copyright.
There are no "non-normal" files, so "normal" is not needed. We have
symlinks and conflicts, but they are not files, so I think just "file"
is unambiguous.
I left `testutils::write_normal_file()` because there it's used to
mean "not executable file" (there's also a `write_executable_file()`).
I left `working_copy::FileType::Normal` since renaming `Normal` there
to `File` would also suggest we should rename `FileType`, and I don't
know what would be a better name for that type.
This migrates the native backend from Protobuf to Thrift since
Google's Protobuf team does let us import jj into Google's monorepo if
it uses a third-party Protobuf library.
Since the native backend is not supported, I didn't write any
migration code for it.
We can't remove `lib/src/protos/store.proto` yet, because it's also
used by the Git backend (only the `predecessors` and `change_id`
fields).
We currently determine if the repo uses the Git backend or the local
backend by checking for presence of a `.jj/repo/store/git_target`
file. To make it easier to add out-of-tree backends, let's instead add
a file that indicates which backend to use.
In many of these places, we don't need an owned value, so using a
reference means we don't force the caller to clone the value. I really
doubt it will have any noticeable impact on performance (I think these
are all once-per-repo paths); it's just a little simpler this way.
I had made the backends unaware of the virtual root commit because
they don't need to know about it, and we could avoid some duplicated
code by putting that in `Store` instead. However, as we saw in
b21a123bc894, the root commit being virtual has some user-visible
effects (they can't create a merge with the root and some other
commit). So I'm thinking that we may want to make the root commit an
actual commit, depending on which backend is used. Specificially, when
using the Git backend, we cannot record the root commit as an actual
parent since Git would fail when trying to look it up. Backends that
don't need compatibility can make the root commit an actual commit,
however.
This commit therefore makes the backends aware of the root commit. It
makes it remain a virtual commit in the Git backend, and makes it an
actual commit in the `LocalBackend`.
This commit breaks any existing repos using the `LocalBackend`, but
there shouldn't be any such repos other than for testing.
The biggest difference in the API is that fields are now public. The
exception from that is `oneof` fields, which still require setters and
getters.
I couldn't measure any difference in performance. I didn't expect any
difference either, but it's good that it didn't seem to regress. I
timed `jj debug operation <some hash prefix>`, which will read the
whole operation log (to check that the prefix is unambiguous).
We do it for all the other kinds of objects already. It's useful to
have the path for backends that store objects by path (we don't have
any such backends yet). I think the reason I didn't do it from the
beginning was because we had separate `RepoPath` types for files and
directories back then.
The recent e5dd93cbf712, whose description says "cleanup: make Vec
inside CommitId etc. non-public", made all ID types in the `backend`
module *except* for `CommitId` non-public :P This patch makes
