Colocation is about sharing the working copy between jj and git. It's
less important where the repo is stored. I therefore think we should
not call it "colocated repo". I considered renaming it to "colocated
working copy" but that sounded awkward in many places because we often
talk about the whole workspace (repo + working copy), so "In colocated
workspaces with a very large number of branches or other refs" sounds
better than "In colocated working copies with a very large number of
branches or other refs".
Once we support colocate workspaces in non-main Git worktrees, I think
this rename will be even more relevant because then all those
workspaces share the same repo but only some of them may be colocated.
This paves the way for the semantics of `jj undo` and `jj op revert` to
evolve independently. `jj op revert` is going to stay the low-level
command to apply the inverse of any operation. The new name is
consistent with `jj revert`, which applies the inverse of a commit.
`jj undo` on the other hand is planned to become a higher-level command,
which is more similar to, say, Ctrl+Z in typical GUI applications.
Running `jj undo` repeatedly will revert progressively older operations,
allowing the user to walk backwards in time. At the same time, `jj undo`
will lose the abilitly to revert arbitrary operations, to keep its
semantics simple and intuitive.
Related feature request "jj undo ergonomics":
https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/issues/3700
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`.
.
As far as I can see in the chat, there's no objection to changing the default,
and git.auto-local-branch = false is generally preferred.
docs/branches.md isn't updated as it would otherwise conflict with #2625. I
think the "Remotes" section will need a non-trivial rewrite.
#1136, #1862
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 means that the commits previously pinned by remote branches are no longer
abandoned. I think that's more correct since "push" is the operation to
propagate local view to remote, and uninteresting commits should have been
locally abandoned.
The original idea was to completely replace git_refs with remotes["git"] by
introducing "forgotten" state, but it turned out to break "fetch && undo"
scenario. There are other ways around, but they also have problems:
* Sets tombstone on forgotten/deleted remote refs, exports remote refs without
comparing to the known refs.
* `jj undo` would need to insert tombstone by diffing old/new views.
* `jj branch forget` would need to preserve the @git branch whereas the other
remote branches would be forgotten.
* Always overwrites remote refs on export.
* `jj git export` without importing would discard remote refs.
So, I decided to not remove git_refs. Apparently, it also improves the undo
behavior. In the new model, `jj git fetch && jj undo && jj git fetch` works
even if git_refs isn't rolled back. So we can unify the default of
`jj undo --what`.
