As far as I can see in the chat, there's no objection to changing the default,
and git.auto-local-branch = false is generally preferred.
docs/branches.md isn't updated as it would otherwise conflict with #2625. I
think the "Remotes" section will need a non-trivial rewrite.
#1136, #1862
I originally thought this would be unavoidable, but I was wrong. "jj git clone"
doesn't implicitly create any local branch if git.auto-local-branch is off, and
that's fine because the detached HEAD state is normal in jj.
That being said, Git users would expect that the main/master branch exists.
Since importing the default branch is harmless, let's create and track it no
matter if git.auto-local-branch is off.
This means that the commits previously pinned by remote branches are no longer
abandoned. I think that's more correct since "push" is the operation to
propagate local view to remote, and uninteresting commits should have been
locally abandoned.
The original idea was to completely replace git_refs with remotes["git"] by
introducing "forgotten" state, but it turned out to break "fetch && undo"
scenario. There are other ways around, but they also have problems:
* Sets tombstone on forgotten/deleted remote refs, exports remote refs without
comparing to the known refs.
* `jj undo` would need to insert tombstone by diffing old/new views.
* `jj branch forget` would need to preserve the @git branch whereas the other
remote branches would be forgotten.
* Always overwrites remote refs on export.
* `jj git export` without importing would discard remote refs.
So, I decided to not remove git_refs. Apparently, it also improves the undo
behavior. In the new model, `jj git fetch && jj undo && jj git fetch` works
even if git_refs isn't rolled back. So we can unify the default of
`jj undo --what`.
This is essentially a new version, which clarifies multiple statements about
`jj run`. Notably, it cleans up some mistakes which were overlooked or deemed
good enough in the Google Docs version.
This ticks another box in #1869.
Co-Authored-By: arxanas <me@waleedkhan.name>
Co-Authored-By: hooper <hooper@google.com>
Co-Authored-By: martinvonz <martinvonz@google.com>
This doc describes what we need to consider in a submodule storage
solution, some possible solutions and what criteria we should use to
decide on a future direction.
This is still a WIP:
- The solutions are still underdescribed
- The actual evaluation of solutions is missing
Suggestions for the above are welcome :)
This document is meant to be a record of how we think about Git
submodules (and not a _current_ implementation of submodules). We will
fill it out incrementally as we get a clearer idea of what we want
submodules to look like.
As an initial version, I started with (IMO) the least controversial
points:
- We want to support most workflows Git submodules users are accustomed
to.
- A roadmap that allows us to incrementally roll out Git submodule
functionality (instead of having to boil the ocean).
