It seemed too verbose to always include @remote branches, so synced remotes
are omitted by default. If the given symbol contained '@', all remote symbols
are populated so that the distance of remote fragment is taken into account.
Typical query would be something like -r 'mine()' or -r 'branches()' to
exclude remote-only branches #1136.
The query matches against local targets only. This means there's no way to
select deleted/forgotten branches by -r option. If we add a default revset
configuration, we'll need some way to turn the default off.
Otherwise, those tests cannot use `jj git push`. This is an issue with a test
in the next commit, and I don't want people to copy these tests and be surprised.
Inspired by d01ecc5c46 "more detailed message describing deleted branches."
And yes, "jj git export" does propagate "jj branch forget" to the underlying
Git repository, which strengthen my feeling that git::export_refs() should
also remove "forgotten" remote tracking refs.
I thought we would need additional bookkeeping to detect forgotten branches,
but I was wrong. If a branch exists only in git_refs, it is forgotten (but not
yet exported.)
Use `br@git` instead.
Before, if there is not a local branch `br`, jj tried to resolve
it as a git ref `refs/heads/br`. Unchanged from before, `br` can
still be resolved as a tag `refs/tag/br`.
This doesn't change the way @git branches are stored in `git_refs` as opposed
to inside `BranchTarget` like normal remote-tracking branches. There are
subtle differences in behavior with e.g. `jj branch forget` and I'm not sure
how easy it is to rewrite `jj git import/export` to support a different
way of storage.
I've decided to call these "local-git tracking branches" since they track
branches in the local git repository. "local git-tracking" branches sounds a
bit more natural, but these could be confused with there are no remote
git-tracking branches. If one had the idea these might exist, they would be
confused with remote-tracking branches in the local git repo.
This addresses a portion of #1666
@joyously found `o` confusing because it's a valid change id prefix. I
don't have much preference, but `●` seems fine. The "ascii",
"ascii-large", and "legacy" graph styles still use "o".
I didn't change `@` since it seems useful to have that match the
symbol used on the CLI. I don't think we want to have users do
something like `jj co ◎-`.
This eliminates ambiguous parsing between "func()" and "expr ()".
I chose "++" as template concatenation operator in case we want to add
bit-wise negate operator. It's also easier to find/replace than "~".
If the user creates a branch with an empty name, it seems very likely
to be an accident. Let's help them realize that by erroring out.
I didn't add the same checks to `jj branch delete`, since that would
make it hard to delete a branch with an empty name from existing
repos.
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.
In the test case `test_branch_mutually_exclusive_actions`, we weren't actually testing anything useful, because the interface has since changed to use subcommands instead of options. The test has been deleted in this commit, and `TestEnvironment::jj_cmd_cli_error` has been changed to return a `#[must_use]` `String` representing stderr. I also added `#[must_use]` to `TestEnvironment::jj_cmd_failure` while I was here.
We didn't have any testing of exit codes on failure, other than
checking that they were not 0. This patch changes that so we always
check. Since we have the special exit code 2 (set by `clap`) for
incorrect command line, I've replaced some testing of error messages
by testing of just the exit code.
As part of this, I also fixed `jj branch --allow-backwards` to
actually require `-r` (it didn't before because having a default value
means the argument is considered always provided).
