The `--allow-large-revsets` flag we have on `jj rebase` and `jj new`
allows the user to do e.g. `jj rebase --allow-large-revsets -b
main.. -d main` to rebase all commits that are not in main onto
main. The reason we don't allow these revsets to resolve to multiple
commits by default is that we think users might specify multiple
commits by mistake. That's probably not much of a problem with `jj
rebase -b` (maybe we should always allow that to resolve to multiple
commits), but the user might want to know if `jj rebase -d @-`
resolves to multiple commits.
One problem with having a flag to allow multiple commits is that it
needs to be added to every command where we want to allow multiple
commits but default to one. Also, it should probably apply to each
revset argument those commands take. For example, even if the user
meant `-b main..` to resolve to multiple commits, they might not have
meant `-d main` to resolve to multiple commits (which it will in case
of a conflicted branch), so we might want separate
`--allow-large-revsets-in-destination` and
`--allow-large-revsets-in-source`, which gets quite cumbersome. It
seems better to have some syntax in the individual revsets for saying
that multiple commits are allowed.
One proposal I had was to use a `multiple()` revset function which
would have no effect in general but would be used as a marker if used
at the top level (e.g. `jj rebase -d 'multiple(@-)'`). After some
discussion on the PR adding that function (#1911), it seems that the
consensus is to instead use a prefix like `many:` or `all:`. That
avoids the problem with having a function that has no effect unless
it's used at the top level (`jj rebase -d 'multiple(x)|y'` would have
no effect).
Since we already have the `:` operator for DAG ranges, we need to
change it to make room for `many:`/`all:` syntax. This commit starts
that by allowing both `:` and `::`.
I have tried to update the documentation in this commit to either
mention both forms, or just the new and preferred `::` form. However,
it's useless to search for `:` in Rust code, so I'm sure I've missed
many instances. We'll have to address those as we notice them. I'll
let most tests use `:` until we deprecate it or delete it.
Before, the number of the generations to track would increase at each merge
point. This was really bad for queries like ':@--' in merge-heavy history,
but I didn't notice the problem because ancestors query is lazy and
the default log template is slow. Since I'm going to reuse RevWalk for
'roots++:' queries, which can't be lazy, I need to fix this problem first.
As we don't have a revset expression to specify exact generation range,
gen.end is initialized to either 1 or close to u32::MAX. So, this change
means long-lived generation ranges will eventually be merged into one.
This basically removes hidden 'all() &' from union/negation of filters. To
achieve that, I have two options: 1. add separate evaluation path (like the
one this commit introduced), or 2. wrap "all()" revset to override predicate
as Box::new(|_| true) function. I took the former since it's less ad-hoc.
We can add an explicit RevsetExpression node to branch between evaluate()
and evaluate_predicate(), but I don't think it would simplify the
implementation at this point. We might need such node if we want to resolve
"all()" at resolve_symbols(). It might be even better to extract a subset of
RevsetExpression enum, which only contains evaluatable nodes.
The cost of 'all() &' isn't significant for most filters. '~merges()' is
the exception. For jj repo,
revsets/:v0.3.0 & (author(martinvonz) | committer(martinvonz))
--------------------------------------------------------------
base 1.06 11.2±0.04m
new 1.00 10.5±0.05m
revsets/~merges()
-----------------
base 1.69 750.0±8.47µ
new 1.00 444.1±3.50µ
This command is similar to Mercurial's revset benchmarking command. It
lets you pass in a file containing revsets. I also included a file
with some revsets to test on the git.git repo. I put it in `testing/`,
which doesn't seem perfect. I'm happy to hear suggestions for better
places, or we can move it later if we find a better place.
Note that these tests don't clear caches between each run (or even
between tests), so revsets that rely on filtering commit data that's
not indexed appear faster than they typically are in reality.
