The `--allow-large-revsets` flag we have on `jj rebase` and `jj new`
allows the user to do e.g. `jj rebase --allow-large-revsets -b
main.. -d main` to rebase all commits that are not in main onto
main. The reason we don't allow these revsets to resolve to multiple
commits by default is that we think users might specify multiple
commits by mistake. That's probably not much of a problem with `jj
rebase -b` (maybe we should always allow that to resolve to multiple
commits), but the user might want to know if `jj rebase -d @-`
resolves to multiple commits.
One problem with having a flag to allow multiple commits is that it
needs to be added to every command where we want to allow multiple
commits but default to one. Also, it should probably apply to each
revset argument those commands take. For example, even if the user
meant `-b main..` to resolve to multiple commits, they might not have
meant `-d main` to resolve to multiple commits (which it will in case
of a conflicted branch), so we might want separate
`--allow-large-revsets-in-destination` and
`--allow-large-revsets-in-source`, which gets quite cumbersome. It
seems better to have some syntax in the individual revsets for saying
that multiple commits are allowed.
One proposal I had was to use a `multiple()` revset function which
would have no effect in general but would be used as a marker if used
at the top level (e.g. `jj rebase -d 'multiple(@-)'`). After some
discussion on the PR adding that function (#1911), it seems that the
consensus is to instead use a prefix like `many:` or `all:`. That
avoids the problem with having a function that has no effect unless
it's used at the top level (`jj rebase -d 'multiple(x)|y'` would have
no effect).
Since we already have the `:` operator for DAG ranges, we need to
change it to make room for `many:`/`all:` syntax. This commit starts
that by allowing both `:` and `::`.
I have tried to update the documentation in this commit to either
mention both forms, or just the new and preferred `::` form. However,
it's useless to search for `:` in Rust code, so I'm sure I've missed
many instances. We'll have to address those as we notice them. I'll
let most tests use `:` until we deprecate it or delete it.
The idea is simple. New heads are ignored until the node dependency resolution
stuck. Then, only the first head that will unblock the visit will be queued.
Closes#242
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
