The original idea was similar to Mercurial's "topo" sorting, but it was bad
at handling merge-heavy history. In order to render merges of topic branches
nicely, we need to prioritize branches at merge point, not at fork point.
OTOH, we do also want to place unmerged branches as close to the fork point
as possible. This commit implements the former requirement, and the latter
will be addressed by the next commit.
I think this is similar to Git's sorting logic described in the following blog
post. In our case, the in-degree walk can be dumb since topological order is
guaranteed by the index. We keep HashSet<CommitId> instead of an in-degree
integer value, which will be used in the next commit to resolve new heads as
late as possible.
https://github.blog/2022-08-30-gits-database-internals-ii-commit-history-queries/#topological-sorting
Compared to Sapling's beautify_graph(), this is lazy, and can roughly preserve
the index (or chronological) order. I tried beautify_graph() with prioritizing
the @ commit, but the result seemed too aggressively reordered. Perhaps, for
more complex history, beautify_graph() would produce a better result. For my
wip branches (~30 branches, a couple of commits per branch), this works pretty
well.
#242
On "jj checkout", description of the working-copy commit is empty, and the
working-copy parent provides more information. It might be a bit verbose to
print parent summary on every history rewriting, but I think that's okay.
@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 "~".
This allows us to use "if(description,)" to test empty description. And
I think this change is unavoidable if we want to add support for commit
template.
I would expect `set_up_fake_[diff_]editor()` to create an empty script
but it turns out they didn't even create the files. That means that
the caller needs to write an empty script to them if they want the
fake editors to not do anything. Let's instead write the empty
scripts, for a less surprising behavior.
The divergent changes are marked with ?? (I found a single ? a bit easy to
overlook), and this should be consistent.
Ideally, the conflicted branches would also be red, but this takes a bit
larger changes to `templater.rs`: another `Property` as well as changes to
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/7f9a0a28/src/template_parser.rs#L385-L395
Otherwise the description set by -m would differ from the one set by editor.
This fixes test_describe() which says "make no changes", but previously "\n"
would be added by the second "jj describe".
As you can see, almost all hashes change in CLI tests. This means in-flight
PRs will need to be rebased to update insta snapshots.
Description text could be normalized by CommitBuilder, but the caller would
have to normalize it beforehand to compare with the current description, so
we would need an explicit function anyway. Another idea is to add a newtype
that represents a normalized description, and make CommitBuilder require it.
Commit::description() will return &Description in place of &str to ensure
that commit.description() == raw_str wouldn't compile.
Git CLI provides --cleanup=<mode> option to switch normalization rules, but
I don't think we'll need such feature.
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 8ae9540f2c, I made `jj move/squash/unsquash` not abandon the
working copy if it became empty because that would lose any
description associated with it. It turned out that the new behavior
was also confusing because it made it unclear if the working-copy
commit was actually abandoned. Let's roll back that change and instead
ask the user for a combined description when both the source and
destination commits have non-empty descriptions. Not discarding a
non-empty description seems like a good improvement regardless of the
behavior related to working-copy commits. It's also how `hg fold`
behaves (though hg doesn't allow the description to be empty).
I was initially worried about the cost of always snapshotting the
working copy, so that's why e.g. `jj diff -r <some hash>` doesn't do
it. However, there's been a few caused by missing snapshotting, and
there are still a few (I just noticed it in `jj undo` while writing
this patch). Let's always do the snapshotting and if the user really
doesn't want it, they can pass `--no-commit-working-copy` (which we
should probably rename to `--no-snapshot-working-copy` or maybe just
`--no-snapshot`). That should reduce bugs and make the CLI more
predictable.
Two test cases were affected becasue `jj merge` also didn't snapshot
the working copy.
Before this patch, e.g. `jj co --no-commit-working-copy` would error
out, but now it will succeed (without touching the working copy,
leaving the working copy stale). That may be confusing, but it should
be easy to recover from (e.g. by `jj undo`). We can consider adding a
check for it later if it seems too confusing (it's probably rarely
something the user wanted).
We had tests for `jj move` and `jj squash`, but not for `jj
unsquash`. I'm about to add a `--keep` option, so let's add tests for
the current behavior first.
