This allows the tutorial to reference them and will make it
easier to have different instructions for different versions.
We can later restore some instructions to the README, but I
think this is important since the installation instructions
do change in important (even if slight) ways from time to
time.
`vimtabdiff` has a few potential advantages:
- It can be much more convenient for diffs with few files
- It can be easier to set up for some people (it is a Python script rather
than a Vim plugin).
- The author accepts patches, and I hope to make it support 3-pane diff.
The pros and cons are also described in the linked Gist.
Per discussion in #2107, I believe "exact" is preferred.
We can also change the default to exact match, but it doesn't always make
sense. Exact match would be useful for branches(), but not for description().
We could define default per predicate function, but I'm pretty sure I cannot
remember which one is which.
git-branchless calls it a substring, so let's do the same.
FWIW, I copied literal:_ from Mercurial, but it's exact:_ in git-branchless.
I have no idea which one is preferred. Since this feature isn't released, we
can freely change it if exact:_ makes more sense.
https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless/wiki/Reference:-Revsets#patterns
The syntax is slightly different from Mercurial. In Mercurial, a pattern must
be quoted like "<kind>:<needle>". In JJ, <kind> is a separate parsing node, and
it must not appear in a quoted string. This allows us to report unknown prefix
as an error.
There's another subtle behavior difference. In Mercurial, branch(unknown) is
an error, whereas our branches(literal:unknown) is resolved to an empty set.
I think erroring out doesn't make sense for JJ since branches() by default
performs substring matching, so its behavior is more like a filter.
The parser abuses DAG range syntax for now. It can be rewritten once we remove
the deprecated x:y range syntax.
Similar to other boolean flags, such as "working_copy" or "empty".
We could test something like
`"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000".contains(commit_id)`
like I did for myself, but first of all this is ugly, and secondly the root
commit id is not guaranteed to be 40 zeroes as custom backend implementations
could have some other root.
That is, jj will use ui.default_description as a starting point when
user is about to describe an empty change.
I think it might be confusing to do this with -m / --stdin (violates
WYSIWYG), so I'm only doing this when jj invokes an editor.
Also, this could evolve into a proper template in the future instead of
just plain text, to allow inheriting from parent change(s), for example.
Partially addresses #1354.
This makes it possible to use ed25519 and ed25519-sk keys by trying
them one at a time. However, it still fails if one of them is
password-protected; we don't try the next key in that case.
This could be a "ui.diff.format" variant, but we would need to solve namespace
problem by prefixing "tool:<name>" for example. Then, inlining command arguments
would become uglier.
#1886
This is basic implementation. There's no config knob to enable the external
diff command by default. It reuses the merge-tools table because that's how
external diff/merge commands are currently configured. We might want to
reorganize them in #1285.
If you run "jj diff --tool meld", GUI diff will open and jj will wait for
meld to quit. This also applies to "jj log -p". The "diff --tool gui" behavior
is somewhat useful, but "log -p --tool gui" wouldn't. We might want some flag
to mark the tool output can't be streamed.
Another thing to consider is tools that can't generate directory diffs. Git
executes ext-diff tool per file, but we don't. Difftastic can compare
directories, and doing that should be more efficient since diffs can be
computed in parallel (at the expense of unsorted output.)
Closes#1886
The `--allow-large-revsets` flag we have on `jj rebase` and `jj new`
allows the user to do e.g. `jj rebase --allow-large-revsets -b
main.. -d main` to rebase all commits that are not in main onto
main. The reason we don't allow these revsets to resolve to multiple
commits by default is that we think users might specify multiple
commits by mistake. That's probably not much of a problem with `jj
rebase -b` (maybe we should always allow that to resolve to multiple
commits), but the user might want to know if `jj rebase -d @-`
resolves to multiple commits.
One problem with having a flag to allow multiple commits is that it
needs to be added to every command where we want to allow multiple
commits but default to one. Also, it should probably apply to each
revset argument those commands take. For example, even if the user
meant `-b main..` to resolve to multiple commits, they might not have
meant `-d main` to resolve to multiple commits (which it will in case
of a conflicted branch), so we might want separate
`--allow-large-revsets-in-destination` and
`--allow-large-revsets-in-source`, which gets quite cumbersome. It
seems better to have some syntax in the individual revsets for saying
that multiple commits are allowed.
One proposal I had was to use a `multiple()` revset function which
would have no effect in general but would be used as a marker if used
at the top level (e.g. `jj rebase -d 'multiple(@-)'`). After some
discussion on the PR adding that function (#1911), it seems that the
consensus is to instead use a prefix like `many:` or `all:`. That
avoids the problem with having a function that has no effect unless
it's used at the top level (`jj rebase -d 'multiple(x)|y'` would have
no effect).
Since we already have the `:` operator for DAG ranges, we need to
change it to make room for `many:`/`all:` syntax. This commit starts
that by allowing both `:` and `::`.
I have tried to update the documentation in this commit to either
mention both forms, or just the new and preferred `::` form. However,
it's useless to search for `:` in Rust code, so I'm sure I've missed
many instances. We'll have to address those as we notice them. I'll
let most tests use `:` until we deprecate it or delete it.
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
Almost everyone calls the project "jj", and there seeems to be
consensus that we should rename the crates. I originally wanted the
crates to be called `jj` and `jj-lib`, but `jj` was already
taken. `jj-cli` is probably at least as good for it anyway.
Once we've published a 0.8.0 under the new names, we'll release 0.7.1
versions under the old names with pointers to the new crates names.
