jj/docs/github.md
Martin von Zweigbergk 48580ed8b1 revsets: allow :: as synonym for :
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.
2023-07-28 22:30:40 -07:00

6.3 KiB

Using Jujutsu with GitHub and GitLab Projects

This guide assumes a basic understanding of either Git or Mercurial.

Set up an SSH key

As of December 2022 it's recommended to set up an SSH key to work with Github projects. See GitHub's Tutorial. This restriction may be lifted in the future, see issue #469 for more information and progress on authenticated http.

Basic workflow

The simplest way to start with Jujutsu, is creating a stack of commits, before creating any branch.

# Start a new commit off of `main`
$ jj new main
# Refactor some files, then add a description and start a new commit
$ jj commit -m 'refactor(foo): restructure foo()'
# Add a feature, then add a description and start a new commit
$ jj commit -m 'feat(bar): add support for bar'
# Create a branch so we can push it to GitHub
$ jj branch create bar -r @-
# Push the branch to GitHub (pushes only `bar`)
$ jj git push

While it's possible to create a branch and commit on top of it in a Git like manner, it's not recommended, as no further commits will be placed on the branch.

Updating the repository.

As of December 2022, Jujutsu has no equivalent to a git pull command. Until such a command is added, you need to use jj git fetch followed by a jj rebase -d $main_branch to update your changes.

Working in a Git co-located repository

After doing jj init --git-repo=., git will be in a detached HEAD state, which is unusual, as git mainly works with branches. In a co-located repository, jj isn't the source of truth. But Jujutsu allows an incremental migration, as jj commit updates the HEAD of the git repository.

$ nvim docs/tutorial.md
$ # Do some more work.
$ jj commit -m "Update tutorial"
$ jj branch create doc-update
$ # Move the previous revision to doc-update.
$ jj branch set doc-update -r @- 
$ jj git push 

Working in a Jujutsu repository

In a Jujutsu repository, the workflow is simplified. If there's no need for explicitly named branches, you just can generate one for a change. As Jujutsu is able to create a branch for a revision.

$ # Do your work
$ jj commit 
$ # Jujutsu automatically creates a branch
$ jj git push --change $revision

Addressing review comments

There are two workflows for addressing review comments, depending on your project's preference. Many projects prefer that you address comments by adding commits to your branch1. Some projects (such as Jujutsu and LLVM) instead prefer that you keep your commits clean by rewriting them and then force-pushing2.

Adding new commits

If your project prefers that you address review comments by adding commits on top, you can do that by doing something like this:

$ # Create a new commit on top of the `your-feature` branch from above.
$ jj new your-feature
$ # Address the comments, by updating the code
$ jj diff
$ # Give the fix a description and create a new working-copy on top.
$ jj commit -m 'address pr comments'
$ # Update the branch to point to the new commit.
$ jj branch set your-feature -r @-
$ # Push it to your remote
$ jj git push.

Rewriting commits

If your project prefers that you keep commits clean, you can do that by doing something like this:

$ # Create a new commit on top of the second-to-last commit in `your-feature`,
$ # as reviews requested a fix there. 
$ jj new your-feature- 
$ # Address the comments by updating the code
$ # Review the changes
$ jj diff 
$ # Squash the changes into the parent commit
$ jj squash
$ # Push the updated branch to the remote. Jujutsu automatically makes it a force push
$ jj git push --branch your-feature

Using GitHub CLI

GitHub CLI will have trouble finding the proper git repository path in jj repos that aren't co-located (see issue #1008). You can configure the $GIT_DIR environment variable to point it to the right path:

$ GIT_DIR=.jj/repo/store/git gh issue list

You can make that automatic by installing direnv and defining hooks in a .envrc file in the repository root to configure $GIT_DIR. Just add this line into .envrc:

export GIT_DIR=$PWD/.jj/repo/store/git

and run direnv allow to approve it for direnv to run. Then GitHub CLI will work automatically even in repos that aren't co-located so you can execute commands like gh issue list normally.

Useful Revsets

Log all revisions across all local branches, which aren't on the main branch nor on any remote
jj log -r 'branches() & ~(main | remote_branches())'
Log all revisions which you authored, across all branches which aren't on any remote
jj log -r 'author(your@email.com) & branches() & ~remote_branches()'
Log all remote branches, which you authored or committed to
jj log -r 'remote_branches() & (committer(your@email.com) | author(your@email.com))'
Log all descendants of the current working copy, which aren't on a remote
jj log -r '::@ & ~remote_branches()'

Merge conflicts

For a detailed overview, how Jujutsu handles conflicts, revisit the tutorial.

Using several remotes

It is common to use several remotes when contributing to a shared repository. For example, "upstream" can designate the remote where the changes will be merged through a pull-request while "origin" is your private fork of the project. In this case, you might want to jj git fetch from "upstream" and to jj git push to "origin".

You can configure the default remotes to fetch from and push to in your configuration file (for example .jj/repo/config.toml):

[git]
fetch = "upstream"
push = "origin"

The default for both git.fetch and git.push is "origin".


  1. This is a GitHub Style review, as GitHub currently only is able to compare branches. ↩︎

  2. If you're wondering why we prefer clean commits in this project, see e.g.this blog post ↩︎