Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cli: status: only scan through mutable changes to find conflicts #3633

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2024

Conversation

edre
Copy link
Contributor

@edre edre commented May 6, 2024

Fixes #3628
Verified manually

Checklist

If applicable:

  • I have updated CHANGELOG.md
  • I have updated the documentation (README.md, docs/, demos/)
  • I have updated the config schema (cli/src/config-schema.json)
  • I have added tests to cover my changes

@edre edre force-pushed the push-ulpuywnxwklw branch 2 times, most recently from b5fabbf to c69d9db Compare May 6, 2024 21:52
@martinvonz
Copy link
Member

Thank you! If we're going to get this into 0.17.1, the commit should be based on that commit and we should do a merge into main. I think that means I'll at least temporarily need to enable "Merge by merging" or whatever it's called in GitHub.

@martinvonz
Copy link
Member

Thank you! If we're going to get this into 0.17.1, the commit should be based on that commit and we should do a merge into main. I think that means I'll at least temporarily need to enable "Merge by merging" or whatever it's called in GitHub.

And we'll of course need to bump the version numbers too. So maybe we should create a new branch for this instead. I don't know how people normally do this with GitHub. Anyway, please don't merge this for now even if you get approval. And could you also make sure it's based on v0.17.0? Thanks

@edre edre force-pushed the push-ulpuywnxwklw branch from c69d9db to 62571ec Compare May 6, 2024 23:13
@edre
Copy link
Contributor Author

edre commented May 6, 2024

Rebased to tag 0.17.0

@edre
Copy link
Contributor Author

edre commented May 6, 2024

Alternatively I could merge this to main, and you could locally jj duplicate to whatever release branch works for you.

@martinvonz
Copy link
Member

Alternatively I could merge this to main, and you could locally jj duplicate to whatever release branch works for you.

I don't think that helps much other than for getting it more quickly to people who build from source on the main branch because the duplicated commit will have the same problem as your current commit has. I don't have any special permissions (though I own the repo so I could temporarily grant myself special permissions if we don't have a better solution).

@martinvonz martinvonz changed the base branch from main to release-0.17.1 May 7, 2024 00:32
@martinvonz martinvonz merged commit b67e198 into jj-vcs:release-0.17.1 May 7, 2024
15 of 16 checks passed
@@ -98,6 +99,9 @@ pub(crate) fn cmd_status(
let ancestors_conflicts = RevsetExpression::filter(RevsetFilterPredicate::HasConflict)
.intersection(&wc_revset.ancestors())
.minus(&wc_revset)
.minus(&revset_util::parse_immutable_expression(
&workspace_command.revset_parse_context(),
)?)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Since immutable_heads() is a user expression, .evaluate_programmatic() can't be used anymore.

@thoughtpolice
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you! If we're going to get this into 0.17.1, the commit should be based on that commit and we should do a merge into main. I think that means I'll at least temporarily need to enable "Merge by merging" or whatever it's called in GitHub.

And we'll of course need to bump the version numbers too. So maybe we should create a new branch for this instead. I don't know how people normally do this with GitHub. Anyway, please don't merge this for now even if you get approval. And could you also make sure it's based on v0.17.0? Thanks

TBH, in this case I'd suggest that we just do "trunk based development" and just merge this, then immediately cut another release from main directly. We fixed barely anything in the past 7 days. I think it's completely OK to rollup the current changes on top of 0.17.0 into an 0.17.1; there's not really much risk in that.

@martinvonz
Copy link
Member

TBH, in this case I'd suggest that we just do "trunk based development" and just merge this, then immediately cut another release from main directly. We fixed barely anything in the past 7 days. I think it's completely OK to rollup the current changes on top of 0.17.0 into an 0.17.1; there's not really much risk in that.

We discussed this a bit on Discord. We made the changes directly on the release branch and then merged into to main branch this time. We can have a separate discussion about instead cherry-picking to the release branch in the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

jj status stalls for 10 seconds after printing output
4 participants