The working-copy revision is usually the latest commit, but it's not always
true. This patch ensures that the wc branch is emitted first so the graph node
order is less dependent on rewrites.
This commit extracts out the common code printing out the
`MoveCommitsStats` information into a shared function. The printed
output was also inconsistent between `-r` and `-s`/`-b` code paths, so I
standardized it to say "Rebased ? commits onto destination" for both
cases.
Added colons to make it seem less like an English sentence, see
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/4602#discussion_r1791295776
I believe printing both the start and end times is excessive for a
summary. For now, I have it print just the start time for consistency.
I intend to change it to print the ending time later.
I was a bit torn on whether to use `format_timestamp(self.time().start())`
or `self.time().start().ago()`. The latter looks better, but is less
configurable and worse for dates long ago. In the future, we could add a
`format_op_summary_timestamp` function and/or a template function that
uses `.ago()` for recent dates and absolute dates for old dates.
This removes an invalid View state from the root operation.
Note that the root index will have to be reindexed in order to resolve "root()"
in the root operation. I don't think this would practically matter, so this
patch doesn't bump the index version to invalidate the existing indexes.
See also 48a9f9ef56 "repo: use Transaction for creating repo-init operation."
Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major
hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like
Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks.
We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord,
where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were
reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name
the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly
help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]`
config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for
users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately
resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations.
This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_
with a easier model.
This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from
me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
There's a subtle behavior change that an empty revset is no longer rejected
individually, but I think that's good for "jj duplicate".
cmd_duplicate() was the last caller of index.topo_order().
this greatly speeds up the time to run all tests, at the cost of slightly larger recompile times for individual tests.
this unfortunately adds the requirement that all tests are listed in `runner.rs` for the crate.
to avoid forgetting, i've added a new test that ensures the directory is in sync with the file.
## benchmarks
before this change, recompiling all tests took 32-50 seconds and running a single test took 3.5 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 3.543 s ± 0.168 s [User: 2.597 s, System: 1.262 s]
Range (min … max): 3.400 s … 3.847 s 10 runs
```
after this change, recompiling all tests take 4 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs ; cargo t --test runner --no-run'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.055 s ± 0.123 s [User: 3.591 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.804 s … 4.159 s 10 runs
```
and running a single test takes about the same:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test runner -- test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.129 s ± 0.120 s [User: 3.636 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.933 s … 4.346 s 10 runs
```
about 1.4 seconds of that is the time for the runner, of which .4 is the time for the linker. so
there may be room for further improving the times.
Once we add support for immutable commits, `jj duplicate` should be
allowed to create duplicate of them. The reason it can't duplicate the
root commit is that it would mean there would be multiple root
commits, which would break the invariant that the single root commit
is the only root commit (and the backends refuse to write a commit
without parents). So let's have `jj duplicate` check specifically that
the user doesn't try to duplicate the root commit instead.
They are shown next to the change and commit id, since they are other names the
commit can be referred by.
The description is separated from the branches by a ` | ` when there are
branches, so that one can tell the branches from the description without color.
The result looks like this: 
