Summary: Someone on Discord mentioned that while using branches, they could
switch between branches like `m1` and `main`, but not `HEAD@git`, even though it
was color coded the same and located right next to the other branch names in the
default `jj log` output.
This confused me too at first, until I realized `jj` was telling me that the
given commit was the `HEAD` reference in the colocated git repo. Let's just
color these references differently in the default schema, to try and hint that
these aren't the same. `bright green` is arbitrary, but helps stand out; and
`green` was only picked because both it and `git` start with "g".
GitHub Issue: #1843
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I66d53ea2b9155db1fec6cae8ba8cbd0f
Almost everyone calls the project "jj", and there seeems to be
consensus that we should rename the crates. I originally wanted the
crates to be called `jj` and `jj-lib`, but `jj` was already
taken. `jj-cli` is probably at least as good for it anyway.
Once we've published a 0.8.0 under the new names, we'll release 0.7.1
versions under the old names with pointers to the new crates names.
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.
Errors that may occur while loading backend would vary per backends, and
it's unlikely that these errors could be mapped to BackendError variants
other than BackendError::Other. So let's extract Other(_) of that kind as
a separate type to clarify there would be no other error variants.
Perhaps, Backend/Error will be renamed to CommitBackend/Error or
CommitStore/Error?, whereas I think BackendInit/LoadError can be shared
among store factories.
The original test is copied from @martinvonz 's [PR draft] (thanks!).
The three versions show differences in behavior due to import/export
of remote-tracking branches, and due to repo being colocated.
The former is relevant for [the discussion] of whether `jj git export` should
export remote-tracking branches. The latter will change in a follow-up commit.
Outstanding TODO: check if we have similar tests for undoing `fetch`
[PR draft]: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/1541
[the discussion]: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/1739
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.
Add the `submodule` subcommand, which will remain hidden while we are
polishing up the submodules feature. Also, add a debugging-only
sub-subcommand `print-gitmodules` that tests our .gitmodules parser with
the .gitmodules in the working copy.
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.)
The motivating use-case was this `jj signoff` script: https://gist.github.com/thoughtpolice/8f2fd36ae17cd11b8e7bd93a70e31ad6
Which includes lines like this:
```sh
NAME=$(jj config list user.name | awk '{split($0, a, "="); print a[2];}' | tr -d '"')
MAIL=$(jj config list user.email | awk '{split($0, a, "="); print a[2];}' | tr -d '"')
```
There is no reason that we should have to clumsily parse out the config values. This `jj config get` command supports scripting use-cases like this.
This commit fixes#1305
Before this commit, running `jj init --git-repo=./` in a folder that
does not have a .git would cause jj to panick and leave an unfinished corrupted jj repo.
This commit fixes that by changing the call chain to return an error
instead of calling .unwrap() and panicking. This commit also adds logic to delete the unfinished jj
repository when the git backend initialization failed.
Before this commit, running the above command would result in the following
```
Running `jj/target/debug/jj init --git-repo=./`
thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: Error { code: -3, klass: 2, message: "failed to resolve path '/Users/kevincliao/github/jj/test-repo/.jj/repo/store/../../../.git': No such file or directory" }', lib/src/git_backend.rs:83:75
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
```
After this commit, the result is the following and the jj repo is deleted:
```
Running `jj/target/debug/jj init --git-repo=./`
Error: Failed to access the repository: Error: Failed to open git repository: failed to resolve path '/Users/kevincliao/github/jj/test-repo/.jj/repo/store/../../../.git': No such file or directory; class=Os (2); code=NotFound (-3)
```
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
Since e48ace56d1, the number of adds in the hunk is always exactly
one more than enumber of removes, so we can simplify the condition and
the error message accordingly.
I think I will find this useful in at least two cases:
1. When you already have a branch pointing to some commit, it's easier
to do `jj git push -r xyz` than `jj git push --branch
push-xyzxyzyxzxyz`.
2. When you have a stack of changes, it's useful to be able to push
all of them at once.
I think we should also update the default behavior of `jj git push` to
be `jj git push -r 'remote_branches()..@'` or something like
that. That removes the ugliness of having a default behavior that the
user can't reproduce using flags. I'll leave that change for a
separate PR.
This was pretty simple. I simplified a bit by making the transaction
description mention only branches, not changes. It still mentions the
branches created for the changes, however. Also, since the operation
"tags" contain the full command line, I think it'll still be
relatively easy for the user to understand what the operation was
about.
