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 using a custom `jj log` command and had some trouble finding
the commit `jj merge` created. The default `jj log` command shows it
by default, but my custom one didn't.
libgit2 by default will respect config files present on a user's
machine---in particular, when creating a new repo, it will read
`init.defaultBranch` to determine what the name of the default branch
should be. This makes the tests non-hermetic, so disable that feature.
On my machine, `init.defaultBranch` is set in system config. Without
this patch, `test_git_colocated` and
`test_git_colocated_rebase_on_import` fail, but with this patch, they
pass.
We have `rust-version = "1.60"` in `Cargo.toml`, but Cargo doesn't
check that until after dependency resolution, which fails if you have
an older version (I don't know why).
The two commands are very similar and we should probably make one an
alias of the other (or just delete one), but for now let's at least
make them more similar by supporting `-m` for both.
I currently think `jj new` is more natural when starting a new change
on top of the current one and `jj checkout` is more natural when
starting a new change on top of another one, as well as when you just
want to look around or run tests. `jj checkout` doesn't currently
default to the working copy like `jj new` does. Perhaps we should make
it do that. Will people eventually feel that it's natural to run `jj
checkout` to create a new change on top of the working copy, or will
they feel that it's natural to run `jj new` on an unrelated commit
even to just look around, or will we want them as synonyms forever?
We have supported conflicts in the working copy for a long time (since
ea82340654), but I had forgotten to update a few references to the
old behavior.
We have supported multiple workspaces for six months now, but I forgot
to remove a note in the revset doc saying that we don't support
it. Also update the text to descibe how to refer to the working-copy
commit in another workspace.
We have had support for workspaces for six months, but I forgot to
update the documentation.
This just adds some basic documentation; we can add more later.
Otherwise a file could be created out of the working copy directory.
This only works for untracked symlinks and sequentially "added" symlinks
and files. For "removed" and "modified" entries, the parent directories are
considered valid and fs::remove_file() will be called. This also doesn't
prevent race conditions caused by concurrent checkouts.
New create_parent_dirs() would be slightly slower than the original because
it traverses directories from the root whereas fs::create_dir_all() does that
from the leaf and exits when reached to a directory.
This doesn't work yet since write_file() overwrites the existing file, which
will be fixed by the next patch.
I've added a callback parameter to update() just because that's the easiest
option. If we want to report the number of the conflicting files (through
CheckoutStats), the callback interface wouldn't work nicely and the error
handling would have to be moved to the update() body. If we want to make
both check_out() and set_sparse_patterns() ignore EEXIST error, we can
eliminate the calback parameter at all.
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).
