It seems everyone agrees that `obslog` is not an intuitive name. There
was some discussion about alternatives in #3592 and on #4146. The
alternatives included `evolution`, `evolutionlog`, `evolog`,
`rewritelog`, `revlog`, and `changelog`. It seemed like
`evolution-log`/`evolog` was the most popular option. That also
matches the command's current help text ("Show how a change has
evolved over time").
Summary: As discussed in Discord, on GitHub, and elsewhere, this change
deprecates the use of `jj checkout` and suggests users use `jj new` exclusively
instead. The verb `checkout` is a relic of a bygone era the — days of RCS
file locking, before 3-way merge — and is not a good, fitting name for the
functionality it provides.
To further drive the bit home, by default, `jj checkout` (and `jj co`) is now
hidden. This will hopefully stop new users from running into it.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I7a1adfc9168fce1f25cf5d4c4c313304769e41a1
This allows the tutorial to reference them and will make it
easier to have different instructions for different versions.
We can later restore some instructions to the README, but I
think this is important since the installation instructions
do change in important (even if slight) ways from time to
time.
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.
@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 ◎-`.
We have made some changes to CLI output that had not made it into the
tutorial. It's time to update it, especially with the new change id
rendering. Since I'm updating it now, and since it's a bit of work to
do so, I decided to use GitHub's Hello-World repo instead of jj's own
repo as our example.
The heading says it's going to explain aliases, but it doesn't, and
now that we've documented aliases in config.md, we probably don't need
to mention it in the tutorial.
We have talked about showing the commit ID only for divergent changes
because it's generally easier to work with the change ID, and it's
less likely to result in a divergent change. However, it's useful to
have the commit ID available for pasting into e.g. a commit message or
the GitHub UI. To try to steer users towards using the change ID, this
commit moves the commit ID off to the right in the log output.
I put it just after the "divergent" field, because that makes it close
to how I imagine it would look if we decided to hide the commit ID
except for divergent changes. I was thinking that could be rendered as
"divergent (abc123)". So if we add config to hide the commit ID, then
it would be rendered almost the same for divergent commits (just with
the added parentheses). It would also make sense to replace the
"divergent" field by a question mark on the change ID, since change
IDs basically behave like branches. If we do that, then the placement
of the commit ID I picked in this commit does not make sense.
Given how easy this was, I can't believe I didn't make the change
sooner.
I haven't updated the screenshots in the readme because I plan to make
some further changes to the default template. I'll update them after
those changes.
I feel the original -------/+++++++ pair is slightly confusing because
each half can be a separator by itself. I don't know what character other
than '-'/'+' is preferred, but let's pick '%' (for "mod") per @martinvonz
suggestion.
It can be confusing that some commits (typically the working copy)
don't have a description. Let's show a placeholder text in such cases.
I chose the format to match the "(no email configured)" message we
already have.
The default log output of showing all commits is not very useful when
contributing to an existing repo. Let's have it default to showing
commits not on any remote branch instead. I think that's the best we
can do since we don't have a configurable main branch yet, and we
don't even have per-repo configuration..
Closes#250.
It's much easier to tell users on all platforms to put their config in
`~/.jjconfig.toml` than in a path that varies across the platforms, so
let's do that. It also seems like a less controversial location for
the file.
Closes ##233.
I'm a little hesitant to do this because most tools I'm familiar with
have the config file directly in `~/`. It's also easier to describe
where to put the file if it doesn't vary across platforms. But we're
still early in the project, so let's try it and see if we get any
complaints.
