Let the user select all changes interactively and put them into
the first commit, and create a second commit with the possibility
of preserving the current commit message. This was previously only
possible in non-interactive mode by specifying matching paths, e.g.
".". In both cases, a warning will be issued indicating that the second
commit is empty.
jj split warning was potentially wrong in both interactive and
non-interactive modes when everything is put into the child commit:
- Non-interactive mode: "The given paths does not match any file:
PATHS". The message is misleading, as the PATHS given on the command-line
may match files but not match files containing changes.
- Interactive mode: "The given paths does not match any file: " while
if possible that no paths were given on the command line.
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 implements a building block of "signed-off-by line" #1399 and "commit
--verbose" #1946. We'll probably need an easy way to customize the diff part,
but I'm not sure if it can be as simple as a template alias function. User
might want to embed diffs without "JJ: " prefixes?
Perhaps, we can deprecate "ui.default-description", but it's not addressed in
this patch. It could be replaced with "default_description" template alias,
but we might want to configure default per command. Suppose we add a default
"backout_description" template, it would have to be rendered against the
source commit, not the newly-created backout commit.
The template key is named as "draft_commit_description" because it is the
template to generate an editor template. "templates.commit_description_template"
sounds a bit odd.
There's one minor behavior change: the default description is now terminated
by "\n".
Closes#1354
`tx.format_commit_summary()` can be expensive because it needs to build
an IdPrefixContext now, so it's best to avoid formatting instruction
messages unless they are actually required.
It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and
currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first
created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a
few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the
working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the
commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began
or finished.
This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty
commits with no description) by the current user have their author
timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author
timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description
or becomes non-empty.
This is following on the rewrite for `parallelize`.
- https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3521
Since rebase_descendants from rebase.rs is no longer used outside of that file,
it can be made private again.
This is the same as the `test_split_siblings_with_merge_child` added in
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/3485, but without the siblings flag. I
forgot to add the non-siblings version in that PR.
#3485
Ilya reported this in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/3483.
The bug was introduced in 976320726d.
Before this fix, `jj split` dropped any parents what weren't involved in the
split when it rebased the children of the commit being split. This meant that
any children which were merge commits lost their other parents unintentionally.
Fixes#3483
When a commit is split, any branches pointing to it are moved to the second
commit created by the split. This is true even if the --siblings option is
used.
#3419
If the --siblings option is used, the target commit is split into two sibling
commits instead of parent and child commits. Any children of the original
commit will have both siblings as their new parents.
#2274
It's inconsistent that some warnings have headings and some don't, and it seems
the choice is arbitrary. Let's unify the style. There are two exceptions:
1. continued line following labeled message,
2. "unrecognized response" followed by prompt.
this greatly speeds up the time to run all tests, at the cost of slightly larger recompile times for individual tests.
this unfortunately adds the requirement that all tests are listed in `runner.rs` for the crate.
to avoid forgetting, i've added a new test that ensures the directory is in sync with the file.
## benchmarks
before this change, recompiling all tests took 32-50 seconds and running a single test took 3.5 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 3.543 s ± 0.168 s [User: 2.597 s, System: 1.262 s]
Range (min … max): 3.400 s … 3.847 s 10 runs
```
after this change, recompiling all tests take 4 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs ; cargo t --test runner --no-run'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.055 s ± 0.123 s [User: 3.591 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.804 s … 4.159 s 10 runs
```
and running a single test takes about the same:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test runner -- test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.129 s ± 0.120 s [User: 3.636 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.933 s … 4.346 s 10 runs
```
about 1.4 seconds of that is the time for the runner, of which .4 is the time for the linker. so
there may be room for further improving the times.
At some point, I tried `new_commit` instead of `rewrite_commit` in the split
command. That seemed to work, but messed up the dates in a subtle way.
This commit should prevents repeats of this mistake and emphasize the
importance of the author dates being preserved.
One use case for `jj split` is when creating a new commit from some of
the changes in the working copy. If there's no description on the
working-copy commit in that case, it seems better to not ask the user
to provide one when they're splitting the commit either.
