The `Repo` doesn't do anything with the `WorkingCopy` except keeping a
reference to it for its users to use. In fact, the entire lib crate
doesn't do antyhing with the `WorkingCopy`. It therefore seems simpler
to have the users of the crate manage the `WorkingCopy` instance. This
patch does that by letting `Workspace` own it. By not keeping an
instance in `Repo`, which is `Sync`, we can also drop the
`Arc<Mutex<>>` wrapping.
I left `Repo::working_copy()` for convenience for now, but now it
creates a new instance every time. It's only used in tests.
This further decoupling should help us add support for multiple
working copies (#13).
Having a concept of a "workspace" will be useful for adding support
for multiple workspaces (#13). You can think of the "workspace" as a
repo combined with a working copy. A workspace corresponds 1:1 with a
`.jj/` directory. It's pretty close to what other VCS simply call a
"repo", but I've ended up using the word "repo" for what Git calls a
"bare repo".
The recent e5dd93cbf7, whose description says "cleanup: make Vec
inside CommitId etc. non-public", made all ID types in the `backend`
module *except* for `CommitId` non-public :P This patch makes
I was confused myself why the message was only printed by `jj co` and
not e.g. `jj undo`. That probably means that it should always be
printed (or never be printed).
Especially when working on a new-to-you project, it's common to end up
with unwanted files automatically tracked before you realize that you
should have added them to the `.gitignore`. Even after adding them to
the `.gitignore`, it's not trivial to make them no longer tracked (you
need to move them away, run e.g. `jj st`, then move them back). This
patch adds `jj untrack` to simplify that (without actually moving the
files).
Closes#14.
A while ago, I replaced a call to git2-rs's `Remote::fetch()` by calls
to `Remote::download()` and `Remote::update_tips()`. The function is
documented to be a convenience for those function, but it turns out
that the pruning of deleted remote refs is a separate call
(`Remote::prune()`), so we need to call that too.
The diff-editing code shares the `TreeState` functionality with the
working-copy code. That means we can now let the user edit conflicts
without materializing them first. So now the user can do e.g. `jj edit
-r <some commit>` and resolve only some of the conflicts.
Since the working copy can now handle conflicts, we don't need to
materialize conflicts when checking out a commit.
Before this patch, we used to create a new commit on top whenever we
checked out a commit with conflicts. That new commit was intended just
for resolving the conflicts. The typical workflow was the resolve the
conflicts and then amend. To use the same workflow after this patch,
one needs to explicitly create a new commit on top with `jj new` after
checking out a commit with conflict.
I realized only recently that we can try to parse conflict markers in
files and leave them as conflicted if they haven't changed. If they
have changed and some conflict markers have been removed, we can even
update the conflict with that partial resolution.
This change teaches the working copy to write conflicts to the working
copy. It used to expect that the caller had already updated the tree
by materializing conflicts. With this change, we also start parsing
the conflict markers and leave the conflicts unresolved in the working
copy if the conflict markers remain.
There are some cases that we don't handle yet. For example, we don't
even try to set the executable bit correctly when we write
conflicts. OTOH, we didn't do that even before this change.
We still never actually write conflicts to the working copy (outside
of tests) because we currently materialize conflicts in
`MutRepo::check_out()`. I'll change that next.
I initially made the working copy materialize conflicts in its
`check_out()` method. Then I changed it later (exactly a year ago, on
Halloween of 2020, actually) so that the working copy expected
conflicts to already have been materalized, which happens in
`MutableRepo::check_out`().
I think my reasoning then was that the file system cannot represent a
conflict. While it's true that the file system itself doesn't have
information to know whether a file represents a conflict, we can
record that ourselves. We already record whether a file is executable
or not and then preserve that if we're on a file system that isn't
able to record it. It's not that different to do the same for
conflicts if we're on a file system that doesn't understand conflicts
(i.e. all file systems).
The plan is to have the working copy remember whether a file
represents a conflict. When we check if it has changed, we parse the
file, including conflict markers, and recreate the conflict from
it. We should be able to do that losslessly (and we should adjust
formats to make it possible if we find cases where it's not).
Having the working copy preserve conflict states has several
advantages:
* Because conflicts are not materialized in the working copy, you can
rebase the conflicted commit and the working copy without causing
more conflicts (that's currently a UX bug I run into every now and
then).
* If you don't change anything in the working copy, it will be
unchanged compared to its parent, which means we'll automatically
abandon it if you update away from it.
* The user can choose to resolve only some of the conflicts in a file
and squash those in, and it'll work they way you'd hope.
* It should make it easier to implement support for external merge
tools (#18) without having them treat the working copy differently.
This patch prepares for that work by adding support for parsing
materialized conflicts.
On Windows, we preserve the executable bit. I plan to also teach the
working copy to preserve conflict state. This refactoring prepares for
that by simplifying how we preserve parts of the current file state.
