Let's acknowledge everyone's contributions by replacing "Google LLC"
in the copyright header by "The Jujutsu Authors". If I understand
correctly, it won't have any legal effect, but maybe it still helps
reduce concerns from contributors (though I haven't heard any
concerns).
Google employees can read about Google's policy at
go/releasing/contributions#copyright.
The two commands are very similar and we should probably make one an
alias of the other (or just delete one), but for now let's at least
make them more similar by supporting `-m` for both.
I currently think `jj new` is more natural when starting a new change
on top of the current one and `jj checkout` is more natural when
starting a new change on top of another one, as well as when you just
want to look around or run tests. `jj checkout` doesn't currently
default to the working copy like `jj new` does. Perhaps we should make
it do that. Will people eventually feel that it's natural to run `jj
checkout` to create a new change on top of the working copy, or will
they feel that it's natural to run `jj new` on an unrelated commit
even to just look around, or will we want them as synonyms forever?
By adding `ui.open-commits=false` in your config, you can now make `jj
checkout` always create a new working-copy commit on top of the
specified commit. If the config is set, open commits will also appear
in the same color as closed commits in `jj log` etc. This will let
some of us experiment with the new UX before we decide if it's a good
idea or not. I left `jj close` in place because it's useful for
setting a description and creating a new commit in one step.
I didn't mention the new config in the release notes because I hope we
can reach a decision and remove the config before the next release.
I'm about to change how `jj checkout` works w.r.t. open/closed commits
(and in particular by moving some logic from the library crate to the
CLI), so let's make sure we have some test coverage.
