We had documented that we support `git.auto-local-bookmark` but we
don't. The documentation has been incorrect since d9c68e08b1. This
patch fixes it by adding support for `git.auto-local-bookmark` with
fallback to the old/current `git.auto-local-branch`.
.
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.
* Add `builtin_immutable_heads()` in the `revsets.toml`.
* Redefine `immutable_heads()` in terms of `builtin_immutable_heads()`
* Warn if user redefines `builtin_immutable_heads()`, `mutable()` or
`immutable()`.
* Update module constant in revset_util.rs from BUILTIN_IMMUTABLE_HEADS
to USER_IMMUTABLE_HEADS to avoid confusion since it points at
`immutable_heads()` **and** we now have a revset-alias
literally named `builtin_immutable_heads()`.
* Add unittest
* Update CHANGELOG
* Update documentation.
Fixes: #4162
It's common to create empty working-copy commits while using jj, and
currently the author timestamp for a commit is only set when it is first
created. If you create an empty commit, then don't work on a repo for a
few days, and then start working on a new feature without abandoning the
working-copy commit, the author timestamp will remain as the time the
commit was created rather than being updated to the time that work began
or finished.
This commit changes the behavior so that discardable commits (empty
commits with no description) by the current user have their author
timestamps reset when they are rewritten, meaning that the author
timestamp will become finalized whenever a commit is given a description
or becomes non-empty.
As discussed in #2900, the milliseconds are rarely useful, and it can
be confusing with different timezones because it makes harder to
compare timestamps.
I added an environment variable to control the timestamp in a
cross-platform way. I didn't document because it exists only for tests
(like `JJ_RANDOMNESS_SEED`).
Closes#2900
this greatly speeds up the time to run all tests, at the cost of slightly larger recompile times for individual tests.
this unfortunately adds the requirement that all tests are listed in `runner.rs` for the crate.
to avoid forgetting, i've added a new test that ensures the directory is in sync with the file.
## benchmarks
before this change, recompiling all tests took 32-50 seconds and running a single test took 3.5 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 3.543 s ± 0.168 s [User: 2.597 s, System: 1.262 s]
Range (min … max): 3.400 s … 3.847 s 10 runs
```
after this change, recompiling all tests take 4 seconds:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs ; cargo t --test runner --no-run'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.055 s ± 0.123 s [User: 3.591 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.804 s … 4.159 s 10 runs
```
and running a single test takes about the same:
```
; hyperfine 'touch lib/src/lib.rs && cargo t --test runner -- test_working_copy'
Time (mean ± σ): 4.129 s ± 0.120 s [User: 3.636 s, System: 1.593 s]
Range (min … max): 3.933 s … 4.346 s 10 runs
```
about 1.4 seconds of that is the time for the runner, of which .4 is the time for the linker. so
there may be room for further improving the times.
