In practice, using path seems to work too, since Windows seems to be capable of
dealing with a path like C:/x/y instead of C:\x\y; but it's cleaner to do this
properly.
This change reduces the number of calls during application startup to
one, calling GetRepoPaths() earlier than previously and plumbing the
repoPaths struct around to achieve this end.
- Introduced a new optional user config command, allBranchesLogCmds
- When pressing 'a' in the Status view, cycle between non-empty, non-identical log commands
- There will always be at least one command to run, since allBranhesLogCmd has a default
- Update documentation & write an integration test
- Update translation string
The current behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch
is to always track the branch it was created from.
For example, if a branch 'my_branch' is created off of the remote branch
'fix_crash_13', then 'my_branch' will be tracking the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
It is common practice to have both the local and remote branches named
the same when the local is tracking the remote one. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that 'my_branch' should not track the remote
'fix_crash_13' branch.
The new behaviour when creating a new branch off of a remote branch is
to track the branch it was created from only if the branch names match.
If the branch names DO NOT match then the newly created branch will not
track the remote branch it was created from.
For example, if a user creates a new branch 'fix_crash_13' off of the
remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'fix_crash_13' branch will
track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
However, if the user creates a new branch called 'other_branch_name' off
of the remote branch 'fix_crash_13', then the local 'other_branch_name'
branch will NOT track the remote 'fix_crash_13' branch.
Several custom patch commands on parts of an added file would fail with the
confusing error message "error: new file XXX depends on old contents". These
were dropping the custom patch from the original commit, moving the patch to a
new commit, moving it to a later commit, or moving it to the index.
We fix this by converting the patch header from an added file to a diff against
an empty file. We do this not just for the purpose of applying the patch, but
also for rendering it and copying it to the clip board. I'm not sure it matters
much in these cases, but it does feel more correct for a filtered patch to be
presented this way.
Unfortunately it isn't possible to delete them. This would often be useful, but
our todo rewriting mechanisms rely on being able to find todos by some
identifier (hash for pick, ref for update-ref), and exec todos don't have a
unique identifier.
It is a valid case for a branch to share no history with any of the main
branches, in which case git merge-base returns an error (and an empty string).
Since we can't distinguish this from one of the main branches having been
deleted, we shouldn't invalidate the cache in that case.
In a triangular workflow the branch that you're pulling from is not the same as
the one that you are pushing to. For example, some people find it useful to set
the upstream branch to origin/master so that pulling effectively rebases onto
master, and set the push.default git config to "current" so that "feature"
pushes to origin/feature.
Another example is a fork-based workflow where "feature" has upstream set to
upstream/main, and the repo has remote.pushDefault set to "origin", so pushing
on "feature" pushes to origin/feature.
This commit adds new fields to models.Branch that store the ahead/behind
information against the push branch; for the "normal" workflow where you pull
and push from/to the upstream branch, AheadForPush/BehindForPush will be the
same as AheadForPull/BehindForPull.
In go 1.22, loop variables are redeclared with each iteration of the
loop, rather than simple updated on each iteration. This means that we
no longer need to manually redeclare variables when they're closed over
by a function.
We are going to truncate overly long lines returned from git log, and the most
likely field that is going to make the line too long is the subject; so we must
put it last, otherwise we'd end up with not enough fields to split when it's too
long.
It might not be obvious from the diff what's happening to the mock command
output in the test: it didn't have the divergence field (">") at all, which was
kind of a bug. It didn't matter for these tests though, because we are not
testing the divergence here, and our production code happens to be resilient
against it missing. But now we must add the ">" field before the subject.
The rebase.updateRefs feature of git is very useful to rebase a stack of
branches and keep everything nicely stacked; however, it is usually in the way
when you make a copy of a branch and want to rebase it "away" from the original
branch in some way or other. For example, the original branch might sit on main,
and you want to rebase the copy onto devel to see if things still compile there.
Or you want to do some heavy history rewriting experiments on the copy, but keep
the original branch in case the experiments fail. Or you want to split a branch
in two because it contains two unrelated sets of changes; so you make a copy,
and drop half of the commits from the copy, then check out the original branch
and drop the other half of the commits from it.
In all these cases, git's updateRefs feature insists on moving the original
branch along with the copy in the first rebase that you make on the copy. I
think this is a bug in git, it should create update-ref todos only for branches
that point into the middle of your branch (because only then do they form a
stack), not when they point at the head (because then it's a copy). I had a long
discussion about this on the git mailing list [1], but people either don't agree
or don't care enough.
So we fix this on our side: whenever we start a rebase for whatever reason, be
it interactive, non-interactive, or behind-the-scenes, we drop any update-ref
todos that are at the very top of the todo list, which fixes all the
above-mentioned scenarios nicely.
I will admit that there's one scenario where git's behavior is the desired one,
and the fix in this PR makes it worse: when you create a new branch off of an
existing one, with the intention of creating a stack of branches, but before you
make the first commit on the new branch you realize some problem with the first
branch (e.g. a commit that needs to be reworded or dropped). It this case you do
want both branches to be affected by the change. In my experience this scenario
is much rarer than the other ones that I described above, and it's also much
easier to recover from: just check out the other branch again and hard-reset it
to the rebased one.
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/354f9fed-567f-42c8-9da9-148a5e223022@haller-berlin.de/
Sometimes it takes a while to get PRs accepted upstream, and this blocks our
progress. Since I'm pretty much the only one making changes there anyway, it
makes sense to point to my fork directly.
For people who have the log.showsignature git config set to true, trying to
reword a signed commit would put the signature verification into the subject
field and the commit subject into the description field of the commit message
panel. Amending commits, adding co-authors to a commit, and copying a commit
message to the clipboard would all be broken in a similar way.
It is a bad idea to read a git-rebase-todo file, remove some update-ref todos,
and write it back out behind git's back. This will cause git to actually remove
the branches referenced by those update-ref todos when the rebase is continued.
The reason is that git remembers the refs affected by update-ref todos at the
beginning of the rebase, and remembers information about them in the file
.git/rebase-merge/update-refs. Then, whenever the user performs a "git rebase
--edit-todo" command, it updates that file based on whether update-ref todos
were added or removed by that edit. If we rewrite the git-rebase-todo file
behind git's back, this updating doesn't happen.
Fix this by not updating the git-rebase-todo file directly in this case, but
performing a "git rebase --edit-todo" command where we set ourselves as the
editor and change the file in there. This makes git update the bookkeeping
information properly.
Ideally we would use this method for all cases where we change the
git-rebase-todo file (e.g. moving todos up/down, or changing the type of a
todo); this would be cleaner because we wouldn't mess with git's private
implementation details. I tried this, but unfortunately it isn't fast enough.
Right now, moving a todo up or down takes between 1 and 2ms on my machine;
changing it to do a "git rebase --edit-todo" slows it down to over 100ms, which
is unacceptable.
To support this, we turn the confirmation prompt of the "Create fixup commit"
command into a menu; creating a fixup commit is the first entry, so that
"shift-F, enter" behaves the same as before. But there are additional entries
for creating "amend!" commits, either with or without file changes. These make
it easy to reword commit messages of existing commits.
We pass all of them to a single editor command, hoping that the editor will be
able to handle multiple files (VS Code and vim do).
We ignore directories that happen to be in the selection range; this makes it
easier to edit multiple files in different folders in tree view. We show an
error if only directories are selected, though.
