This follows up on 3967f63 (see that commit's description for more
motivation) and e79c8b6.
In a discussion linked below, it was decided that forbidding `-r --skip-empty`
entirely is preferable to the mixed behavior introduced in 3967f63.
3967f637dc (commitcomment-133539911)
This follows up on @matts1 's #2609.
We still allow the `-r` commit to become empty. I would be more comfortable if
there was a test for that, but I haven't done that (yet?) and it seems pretty
safe. If that's a problem, I'm happy to forbid `-r --skip-empty` entirely,
since it is far less useful than `-s --skip-empty` or `-b --skip-empty`.
I think it is undesired to abandon emptied descendants. As far as descendants
of `A` are concerned, `jj rebase -r A` should be equivalent to `jj abandon A`,
and `jj abandon` does not remove emptied commits. It also doesn't seem very
useful to do that, since I think descendant commits of an abandoned (or moved
with `-r`) commit only become empty in pathological cases.
Additionally, if we did want -r to empty descendants of `A`, we'd have to add
thorough tests and possibly improve the algorithm. I want to refactor `rebase
-r` and add features to it, and having to consider cases of commits becoming
abandoned makes everything harder.
For example, if we have
```
root -> A -> B -> C
```
and `jj rebase -r A -d C` empties commit `B` (or `C`), I do not know whether
the current algorithm will work correctly. It seems possible that it would, but
that depends on the fact that empty merge commits are not abandoned for
descendants. That seems dangerous to rely on without tests.
I hope (but can't promise) that in the near future, making DescendantRebaser
return more information should help make it possible to create such
functionality in a more robust way. I am likely to attempt this as part of
implementing `-r --after`.
Adress the post-merge comments from #2486, which found a doc comment
inaccurate and to not blindly ignore `-j 0` which would've worked until now.
I've also reduced the default `jobs` size to one, as it's user-visible configuration
which determines how many processes should run.
Thanks to @necauqua the controversial `unsafe` usage was already removed.
I've omitted to change `revisions` from an Vec to a RevisonArg for the moment,
as I will keep working on the file anyway.
If the existing git repo contains local and remote branches of the same name,
one of the remote branches is probably a tracking remote branch. Let's show
a hint how to set up tracking branches. The tracking state could be derived
from .git/config, but doing that automatically might cause another issue like
#1862, which could have been mitigated by git.auto-local-branch = false.
`RevsetExpression::resolve()` is meant for programmatically created
expressions. In particular, it may not contain symbols. Let's try to
clarify that by renaming the function and documenting it.
Repeating these is a no-op. This allows:
```shell
jj new -r a -r b # Equivalent to jj new a b
jj new --before a --before b # Equivalent to jj new a b --before
```
I keep typing the latter and getting an annoying error.
Follows up on 13c93d5270.
The information I added is explained in that commit's description, but
I feel like it could reduce confusion for future readers of the code.
Since this is the error to spawn (or wait) process, command arguments aren't
important. Let's make that clear by not showing full command string.
#2614
The `scm-record` library comments say that the `file_mode` is:
> The Unix file mode of the file (before any changes), if available.
This reverts commit ffd6884 and fixes#2591 and #2548.
We need to .collect_vec() the parents iterator to temporary buffer since the
borrowed iterator can't be returned back to the dag_walk functions. Another
option is to clone op_store and parent ids to remove &self lifetime from the
iterator, but that also means a temporary Vec is created.
GitBackend will use it to configure gix::Repository. I think UserSettings
is generally useful to pass store-specific parameters, so I've updated all
factory functions.
I'll make it propagate OpStoreError, but OpStoreError is quite different
from the existing StaleWorkingCopyError. I think this error isn't actually
an "error" but a description of the working copy state.
Per discussion in https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/2555. I'm
okay with either way, but it's confusing if we had "branch create" and
"branch set" and both of these could create a new branch.
Renamed `description_template_for_commit` to
`description_template_for_describe` since it's only used in
`cmd_describe`.
Renamed `description_template_for_cmd_split` to
`description_template_for_commit` and modified to accomodate empty
`intro` argument.
Fixes#2439.
