This makes it easier to work with multiple remotes at once while
tracking the default branch of the remote used to create the local
repository:
```shell
$ jj git clone --remote upstream https://github.com/upstream-org/repo
$ cd repo
$ jj git remote add origin git@github.com:your-org/repo
$ jj config set --repo git.fetch upstream
```
In the example above, `upstream` is the repository containing the
reference source code that you might want to patch, while `origin` is
your fork where pull-request will be pushed. The branch `main@upstream`
will be tracked.
Jujutsu's branches do not behave like Git branches, which is a major
hurdle for people adopting it from Git. They rather behave like
Mercurial's (hg) bookmarks.
We've had multiple discussions about it in the last ~1.5 years about this rename in the Discord,
where multiple people agreed that this _false_ familiarity does not help anyone. Initially we were
reluctant to do it but overtime, more and more users agreed that `bookmark` was a better for name
the current mechanism. This may be hard break for current `jj branch` users, but it will immensly
help Jujutsu's future, by defining it as our first own term. The `[experimental-moving-branches]`
config option is currently left alone, to force not another large config update for
users, since the last time this happened was when `jj log -T show` was removed, which immediately
resulted in breaking users and introduced soft deprecations.
This name change will also make it easier to introduce Topics (#3402) as _topological branches_
with a easier model.
This was mostly done via LSP, ripgrep and sed and a whole bunch of manual changes either from
me being lazy or thankfully pointed out by reviewers.
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 suggested by @yuja in
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/1841#issuecomment-1720451152
Thanks to @lazywei for pointing out that `git pack-refs --all` is better, at
least on the first run. I haven't checked, but suspect, that because of the
number of `refs/jj` refs jj creates, it might always be better.
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2230 indicates a lot of
interest in this, so we'd probably want to support this officially at
some point. Until then, document a script that has worked well-enough
for some of us.
This makes it possible to use ed25519 and ed25519-sk keys by trying
them one at a time. However, it still fails if one of them is
password-protected; we don't try the next key in that case.
This bug concerns the way `import_refs` that gets called by `fetch` computes
the heads that should be visible after the import.
Previously, the list of such heads was computed *before* local branches were
updated based on changes to the remote branches. So, commits that should have
been abandoned based on this update of the local branches weren't properly
abandoned.
Now, `import_refs` tracks the heads that need to be visible because of some ref
in a mapping keyed by the ref. If the ref moves or is deleted, the
corresponding heads are updated.
Fixes#864
This adds a `jj sparse` command with options to list and manage the
set of paths to include in the working copy. It only supports includes
(postive matches) for now.
I'm not sure "sparse" is the best name for the feature. Perhaps it
would make sense as a subcommand under `jj workspace` - maybe `jj
workspace track`? However, there's also `jj untrack` for removing a
file from the working copy and leaving it in the working copy. I'm
happy to hear suggestions, or we can get back to the naming later.
It probably doesn't make sense to respect Git's `core.excludesFile`
config when not running in a Git-backed repo, but we also already
respect `.gitignore` files in the working copy regardless of backend,
so at least it's consistent with that. We can revisit it when the
native backend becomes a reasonable choice.
Closes#87.
