This follows up on #2625 and updates all sections of `branches.md` to represent
the new default of `git.auto-local-branch=false`.
I realized that the paragraph we discussed for so long with @PhilipMetzger
actually repeats information that was already present a bit earlier in the file.
So, I removed most of it and moved the rest. Sorry I didn't notice this earler.
## The callout
Unfortunately, GitHub and MkDocs use different syntax for admonitions.
The callout looks like this in MkDocs:
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/assets/4123047/45d79e7a-35db-492e-a227-004b7e3383c1
Use `poetry run -- mkdocs serve` to double-check.
Wol on lwn.net pointed out that our current description in the Git
Comparison doc for why there is no staging area can be interpreted as
saying that it's because it simplifies the CLI. It took me a while to
see that interpretation, but it makes sense to me now. This patch
tries to clarify that we have better tools than the staging area for
manipulating commits.
On my machine, this halves the time taken by `cargo insta test --workspace
--test-runner nextest`.
I don't believe there would be a worthwhile improvement when not
using `nextest`. I also documented how to tell whether using `mold`
is worthwhile.
I was reminded of this by https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/2858.
Sadly, ripgrep won't honor the .gitignore files in the absence of a
.git directory, so we need to pass an annoying flag (for non-colocated
repos).
That seems worth adding despite the existing suggestion, because rg is
faster, and for existing users for rg, it would teach them how to make
rg work as expected.
A possible use case is when doing some archaeology around a certain operation.
The current implementation is quadratic if + is repeated. Suppose op_id is
usually close to the current op heads, I think it'll practically work better
than building a reverse lookup table.
This question is mildly popular on Discord so it's finally time to have an answer.
We should do something better in the future but the current solution is good enough for today.
cc @thoughtpolice
As far as I can see in the chat, there's no objection to changing the default,
and git.auto-local-branch = false is generally preferred.
docs/branches.md isn't updated as it would otherwise conflict with #2625. I
think the "Remotes" section will need a non-trivial rewrite.
#1136, #1862
I originally thought this would be unavoidable, but I was wrong. "jj git clone"
doesn't implicitly create any local branch if git.auto-local-branch is off, and
that's fine because the detached HEAD state is normal in jj.
That being said, Git users would expect that the main/master branch exists.
Since importing the default branch is harmless, let's create and track it no
matter if git.auto-local-branch is off.
This adds an initial `jj util gc` command, which simply calls `git gc`
when using the Git backend. That should already be useful in
non-colocated repos because it's not obvious how to GC (repack) such
repos. In my own jj repo, it shrunk `.jj/repo/store/` from 2.4 GiB to
780 MiB, and `jj log --ignore-working-copy` was sped up from 157 ms to
86 ms.
I haven't added any tests because the functionality depends on having
`git` binary on the PATH, which we don't yet depend on anywhere
else. I think we'll still be able to test much of the future parts of
garbage collection without a `git` binary because the interesting
parts are about manipulating the Git repo before calling `git gc` on
it.
As discussed in Discord, it's less useful if remote_branches() included
Git-tracking branches. Users wouldn't consider the backing Git repo as
a remote.
We could allow explicit 'remote_branches(remote=exact:"git")' query by changing
the default remote pattern to something like 'remote=~exact:"git"'. I don't
know which will be better overall, but we don't have support for negative
patterns anyway.
This adds two MkDocs extensions to make list handling more flexible.
It took some trial-and-error, but it seems this config works OK.
revsets.md: use saner formatting that is now possible.
sapling-comparison.md: this was the one case I saw made worse by the
new plugins. I changed the Markdown formatting, it still looks sane.
Both local and remote refs are backed by the same value type since we'll need
some kind of runtime abstraction to represent "branches" keyword (which is a
list of local + remote branches.) It's tedious to implement separate
local/remote/both ref types.
The "unsynced" flag is inverted just because the positive term is slightly
easier to document.
I'm going to change "branches" to return a list instead of formatted string,
and I don't think "if(branches, ..)" should be invalidated by that. Perhaps,
a container type like String, Vec<T>, Option<T> can implement the cast.
Thanks to @glencbz for noticing that VS Code works fine now as a
merge tool, and thanks to @solson for suggesting
`merge-tool-edits-conflict-markers = true`.
