The `CommitBuilder::store` field is used only in
`CommitBuilder::write_to_repo()`, but we can easily get access to the
`Store` from the `repo` argument there, so let's remove the field.
When rebasing commits after rewrites, we also update all workspaces'
checkouts. If the new commit is closed, we create a new commit on
top. Since we're hoping to remove the open/closed concept, we need a
new condition. I considered creating a new commit on top if the change
ID was different from before the rewrite. However, that would make at
least `jj split` more complicated because it makes the first commit
keep the change ID but it wants the second commit to be checked
out. This patch instead creates the new commit on top only when the
original commit was abandoned.
We don't even have any settings that affect the repo, so there's no
point in passing the settings. I think this was a leftover from before
we separated out the "workspace" concept; now we no longer create a
working-copy commit when we initialize a repo (we do that when we
attach the workspace).
Let's say we have a simple history like this:
```
B C D
\|/
A
```
Branch `main` initially points to commit B. Two concurrent operations
then move the branch to commits C and D. When the two concurrent
operations get merged, the branch will be recorded as pointing to
"C+D-B". If a subsequent operation now abandons commit B, we would
update the "removed" side of the branch conflict. That seems a little
dishonest. I think the reason I did it that way was in order to not
keep B visible back when having it present in the "removed" side would
keep it visible (before 33bf6ce1d5).
I noticed this issue while working on #241 because
`test_import_refs_reimport()` started failing. That test case is
pretty much exactly the case above.
The `DescendantRebaser` keeps a map of branches from the source
commit, so it gets efficient lookup of branches to update when a
commit has been rebased. This map was not kept up to date as we
rebased. That could lead to branches getting left on hidden
intermediate commits. Specifically, if a commit with a branch was
rewritten by some command, and an ancestor of it was also rewritten,
then we'd only update the branch only the first step and not update it
again when rebasing onto the rewritten ancestor.
There was a TODO about adding a test case for a delete/modify conflict
in a branch target that got resolved by abandoning a commit. The
resolution is to delete the branch. That case couldn't happend with
our old evolution-based mechanism for tracking rewrites (because we
couldn't un-prune a commit then).
Most tests need a repo but don't need a working copy. Let's have a
function for setting up a test repo. But first, let's free up the name
`init_repo()` by renaming it to `init_workspace()` (which is also more
accurate).
The `DescendantRebaser` was designed to help with rebasing in two
different use cases: 1) after regular rewriting of commits where the
change ID is preserved, and 2) after importing moved branches from
other repo (e.g. backing Git repo or remote). Many of the tests are
for the second use case, such as where a branch was moved
forward. However, I just noticed that there's a pretty common scenario
from the first use case that is not supported.
Let's say you have this history:
```
D
|
C C'
|/
B B'
|/
A
```
Here we want C' to be rebased onto B' and then D to be rebased onto
C''. However, because of the support for moving branches forward, we
would not rebase commits that were already rewritten, such as C' here
(see affected tests for details), which resulted in D getting rebased
onto C', and both B and B' remaining visible.
I think I was thinking when I designed it that it would be nice if you
could just tell `DescendantRebaser` that any descendants of a commit
should be moved forward. That may be useful, but I don't think we'll
want that for the general case of a branch moving forward. Perhaps
we'll want to make it configurable which branches it should happen
for. Either way, the way it was coded by not rebasing already
rewritten commits did not work for the case above. We may be able to
handle both cases better by considering each rewrite separately
instead of all destinations at once. For now, however, I've decided to
keep it simple, so I'm fixing the case above by sacrificing some of
the potentially useful functionality for moving branches forward.
Another fix necessary for the scenario shown above was to make sure we
always rebase C' before D. Before this patch, that depended on the
order in the index. This patch fixes that by modifying the topological
order to take rewrites into account, making D depend not only on C but
also on C'. (I suppose you could instead say that C depends on both B
and C'; I don't know if that'd make a difference.)
Despite what the documentation said, we don't clear the record of
rewritten and abandoned commits at the end. This change fixes that,
and adds a test showing that it's possible to call
`MutableRepo::rebase_descendants()` multiple times.
If you rewrite a commit that's also available on some remote, you'll
currently see both the old version and the new version in the view,
which means they're divergent. They're not logically divergent (the
rewritten version should replace the old version), so this is a UX
bug. I think it indicates that the set of current heads should be
redefined to be the *desired* heads. That's also what I had suspected
in the TODO removed by this change. I think another indication that
we should hide the old heads even if they have e.g. a remote branch
pointing to them is that we don't want them to be rebased if we
rewrite an ancestor.
So that's what I decided to do: let the view's heads be the desired
heads. The user can still define revsets for showing non-current
commits pointed to by e.g. remote branches.
This patch teaches `DescendantRebaser` to also update heads. That's
done at the end of the rebase (when `rebase_next()` starts returning
`None`), which is a little weird. We should probably change the
interface, but this will do for now.
With this change, we should no longer need to remove hidden heads when
the transaction commits. That will remove one of the last bits of
dependence on evolution from most commands (#32).
This is similar to how a recent change taught `DescendantRebaser` to
update branches pointing to rewritten commits. Now we also update the
checkout if it pointed to a rewritten commit.
This patch moves the logic for updating branches from
`update_branches_after_rewrite()` into `DescendantRebaser`. The
branches are now updated along with each rebased commit rather than
all being updated at the end. The new code uses the information about
rewritten and abandoned commits that `DescendantRebaser` gets from
`MutableRepo`. That is different from the old code, which used the
evolution state. This patch thus moves us one step closer to removing
evolution (#32).
I'm going to teach `DescendantRebaser` to also update local branches
pointing to rewritten commits, taking over the responsibility from
`rewrite::update_branches_after_rewrite()`. For commits that have been
rewritten as multiple new commits (divergent, not split), that
function makes local branches pointing to the old commit point to all
the new commits. To replicate that behavior in `DescendantRebaser`, it
needs to know about divergent changes. This change addresses that.
Descendants of abandoned commits should be rebased onto their parents,
or the rewritten parents if they had been rewritten. This patch
teaches `DescendantRebaser` to do that. It updates `jj rebase -r` to
use the functionality. I plan to also use it in `jj abandon`
(naturally, given the name), and for rebasing descendants of deleted
refs imported from `jj git refresh/fetch/push`.
The fact that `DescendantRebaser` visits some commits that don't need
to be rebased is mostly an implementation detail. I can't think of a
reason that callers would care about these commits.
The command's help text says "Abandon a revision", which I think is a
good indication that the command's name should be `abandon`. This
patch renames the command and other user-facing occurrences of the
word. The remaining occurrences should be removed when I remove
support for evolution.
This patch moves the function for updating branches after rewrite from
`commands.rs` into `rewrite.rs`.
It also changes the function to update branches even if they were
conflicted or become conflicted. I think that seems better than
leaving branches on old commits. For example, let's say you have start
with this:
```
C main
|
B origin@main
|
A
```
You now pull from origin, which has updated the main branch from B to
B'. We apply that change to both the remote branch and the local
branch, which results in a conflict in the local branch:
```
C main?
|
B B' main? origin@main
|/
A
```
If you now rewrite C to C', the conflicted main branch will still
point to C, which is just weird. This patch changes that so the
conflicted side of main gets repointed to C'.
I also refactored the code to reuse our existing
`MutableRepo::merge_single_ref()`, which improves the behavior in
several cases, such as the conflict-resolution case in the last test
case.
As the updates test case shows, when rebasing forward, we missed
commits that fork off from the section between the source and the
destination.
As part of the fix, I also restructured the code a bit to prepare for
support for rebasing descendants of multiple rewritten commits.
When I added the function for rebasing descendants, I forgot to call
the existing `rebase()` function and instead simply created a new
commit with the new parents but the old contents.
This should be useful in lots of places. For example, `jj rebase -r`
currently rebases all descendants, because that's what the auto-evolve
feature does. I think it would be nice to instead copy from
Mercurial's `-s` flag for also rebasing descendants. Then `jj rebase
-r` can be made to pull a commit out of a stack, rebasing descendants
onto the rebased commit's parents. I also intend to use this
functionality for rebasing descendants when remote branches have been
rewritten.
