I originally thought this would be unavoidable, but I was wrong. "jj git clone"
doesn't implicitly create any local branch if git.auto-local-branch is off, and
that's fine because the detached HEAD state is normal in jj.
That being said, Git users would expect that the main/master branch exists.
Since importing the default branch is harmless, let's create and track it no
matter if git.auto-local-branch is off.
This tries to clarify the fact that the branches must be remote and the syntax
for specifying them as globs.
Cc @yuja, https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/pull/2625#discussion_r1423379351
Here is the result (excerpt):
```
$ jj branch track --help
Start tracking given remote branches
A tracking remote branch will be imported as a local branch of the same name. Changes to it
will propagate to the existing local branch on future pulls.
Usage: jj branch track [OPTIONS] <BRANCH@REMOTE>...
Arguments:
<BRANCH@REMOTE>...
Remote branches to track
By default, the specified name matches exactly. Use `glob:` prefix to select
branches by wildcard pattern. For details, see
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/blob/main/docs/revsets.md#string-patterns.
Examples: branch@remote, glob:main@*, glob:jjfan-*@upstream
```
This prints a hint about using `jj new <first conflicted commit>` and
`jj squash` to resolve conflicts. The hint is printed whenever there
are new or resolved conflicts.
I hope this hint will be useful especially for new users so they know
which commit to resolve conflicts in first. It may not be obvious that
they should start with the bottommost one. I hope the hint will also
be useful for more more experienced user by letting them just copy the
printed command without first running `jj log` to find the right
commit..
When e.g. `jj rebase` results in new conflicts, it's useful for the
user to learn about that without having to run `jj log` right
after. This patch adds reporting of new conflicts created by an
operation. It also add reporting of conflicts that were resolved or
abandoned by the operation.
There was no measurable performance impact when rebasing a single
commit in the Linux kernel repo.
Before, an absolute path would be saved in the git_target file if .git is a
symlink. That's not wrong, but seemed a bit weird. Let's consolidate the
behavior across .git file types.
Apparently, libgit2 doesn't deduce "core.bare" config from the directory name,
but gitoxide implements it correctly. So we shouldn't blindly canonicalize
the Git repository path. Fortunately, the saved git_target path isn't a fully-
canonicalized form (unless user explicitly sepcified "--git-repo ./.git"), so
we don't need a hack to remap git_target back to the symlink path.
is_colocated_git_workspace() is adjusted since the git_workdir is no longer
resolved from the fully-canonicalized repo path, at least in our code. Still we
have the ".git/.." fallback because test_init_git_colocated_symlink_gitlink()
would otherwise fail. I haven't figured out why, and the test might be actually
wrong compared to the git CLI behavior, but let's not change that for now.
Fixes#2668
A git repo created by the "repo" tool doesn't have core.base set, which means
the "bare"-ness relies on the directory name. Gitoxide appears to parse it
correctly, whereas libgit2 doesn't. That's why the symlinked .git repo is no
longer processed as a colocated repo.
#2668
See comments inline for details. Cc #2600.
In particular, I wanted to make sure these behaviors are not affected by #2646.
They don't seem to be.
The tests ended up weirder than expected because of
https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/issues/2600#issuecomment-1835418824. Even
though, right now, the behavior of tests is unaffected by that issue, the
*expected* behavior is different.
Branches move around a little confusigly with `abandon`. We do want to keep
them, to test their behavior, but we can show the change id to make things
clearer.
Note that one of the new tests panics; this is a newly discovered bug.
In Git, a commit's direct parent is allowed to also be an indirect ancestor
at the same time. `jj` currently tries to prevent this situation, but does
allow it. The correctness of `rebase -r A -d descendant_of_A` currently depends
on this jj-specific behavior; we should change that.
Cc #2600
Allowing `jj init --git` in an existing Git repo creates a second Git
store in `.jj/repo/store/git`, totally disconnected from the existing
Git store. This will only produce extremely confusing bugs for users,
since any operations they make in Git will *not* be reflected in the
jj repo.
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)
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.
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.
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.
As discussed in Discord, it's less useful if remote_branches() included
Git-tracking branches. Users wouldn't consider the backing Git repo as
a remote.
We could allow explicit 'remote_branches(remote=exact:"git")' query by changing
the default remote pattern to something like 'remote=~exact:"git"'. I don't
know which will be better overall, but we don't have support for negative
patterns anyway.
Summary: A natural extension of the existing support, as suggested by Scott
Olson. Closes#2496.
Signed-off-by: Austin Seipp <aseipp@pobox.com>
Change-Id: I91c9c8c377ad67ccde7945ed41af6c79
My gut feeling is that gitoxide aims to be more transparent than libgit2. We'll
need to know more about the underlying Git data model.
Random comments on gix API:
* gix::Repository provides API similar to git2::Repository, but has less
"convenient" functions. For example, we need to use .find_object() +
.try_to/into_<kind>() instead of .find_<kind>().
* gix::Object, Blob, etc. own raw data as bytes. gix::object and gix::objs
types provide high-level views on such data.
* Tree building is pretty low-level compared to git2.
* gix leverages bstr (i.e. bytes) extensively.
It's probably not difficult to migrate git::import/export_refs(). It might
help eliminate the startup overhead of libssl initialization. The gix-based
GitBackend appears to be a bit faster, but that wouldn't practically matter.
#2316
Like "jj log PATHS...", unmatched name isn't an error. I don't think
"jj branch list glob:'push-*'" should fail just because there are no in-flight
PR branches.
