We didn't have any guidelines about what to include in a commit
message. Others have already written good guides for that. This commit
adds a link to one. I also added a sentence about explaining the
reason for a change, since I think that's particularly often missed
(I'm sure I also miss it sometimes - don't hesitate to point out when
that happens).
It's generally more useful to say something like "revset: use Self to
refer to expressions of the same type" than "lib: use Self to refer to
revset expressions of the same type ", so let's try to clarify that.
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.
I used to use "remote_branches() & ~mine()" to exclude "their" branches from
the default log, and I don't think that's uncommon requirement. Suppose
untracked branches are usually read-only, it's probably okay to make them
immutable by default.
This adds the basic outline of _when_ a Design Doc should be written. See the next
commit in the stack for the blueprint.
By adding this we hopefully can prevent unnecessary churn from new and longtime contributors,
when they want to add a major feature or rewrite a core part of Jujutsu. The text is written
as a guideline, not a rule.
I feel like recommending people install Poetry via a package manager was
a mistake. Poetry only supports its latest version, and while newer
versions are sort-of backward-compatible, they print warnings in
different situations and have different bugs. Installing `pipx` via a
package manager, OTOH, works fine, and its older versions work fine.
Using Poetry 1.8+ allows us to use Poetry's new "non-package" mode,
which would no longer print warnings if the user does `poetry install`
instead of `poetry install --no-root`. It's likely that in newer
versions of Poetry, it will become an error.
We want to avoid conflicts of interest (both real and
apparent). Better to document this before it happens.
By the way, Ilya and I both work for Google and we have approved lots
of each others' PRs, but we work in very different parts of the
company and I don't think any of the PRs have been specific to
Google's interests.
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.
One action publishes the 'prerelease' version on every push
to `main`.
The other publishes a 'latest' version on every releasse.
I tested both of them, but not with branch protection rules.
I initially was thinking of using `mdbook`, which looks a little better, but I
think versioning the docs is important, and the features I want are pretty much
only supported by the Mkdocs' "Material" theme.
Mkdocs is written in Python. The prerequesites for building docs on your
machine should be to install Python and Poetry, everything else should be
installed automatically by Poetry. See the edits to `contributing.md` for more details.
Summary: This was some fallout from merging #1851; I missed a few changes
I needed to back out for an upcoming diff.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I1fcdce228dea730ad7c73ad1f05facda
Summary: Let's be more aggressive about tracking the latest stable Rust release.
There's little benefit to being conservative so early on, especially when no
users seem to have faced any issue with upgrading, or strictly required an old
Rust version.
Right now, just lagging Rust by 1 major release probably seems fine. We're
targeting 1.71.0 to get ahead of the curve, since 1.72.0 will likely release
sometime before the next `jj` release.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I4e691b6ba63b5b9023a75ae0a6917672
We need 1.64 to bump `clap` to `4.1`. We don't really need to upgrade
to that, but being on an older version causes minor confusions like
#1393. Rust 1.64 is very close to 6 months old at this point.
Running `cargo fmt` while you're working in an editor means that you
may lose changes because of a race:
1. Your editor reads version X of file
2. `cargo fmt` reads version X
3. You save version Y from your editor
4. `cargo fmt` saves version Z, replacing Y
It can be confusing that the lib crate is not tested when you run
`cargo test` without `--workspace` from the root directory. Also,
`nextest` is a non-obvious quality-of-life improvement, so let's
suggest that.
