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.
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.
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?
By adding `ui.open-commits=false` in your config, you can now make `jj
checkout` always create a new working-copy commit on top of the
specified commit. If the config is set, open commits will also appear
in the same color as closed commits in `jj log` etc. This will let
some of us experiment with the new UX before we decide if it's a good
idea or not. I left `jj close` in place because it's useful for
setting a description and creating a new commit in one step.
I didn't mention the new config in the release notes because I hope we
can reach a decision and remove the config before the next release.
I'm about to change how `jj checkout` works w.r.t. open/closed commits
(and in particular by moving some logic from the library crate to the
CLI), so let's make sure we have some test coverage.
