On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:47 PM Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 at 19:40, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > One possible simple solution here is just to treat change-ids (or > > there abbreviations) kind of like abbreviated hashes -- they aren't > > guaranteed to be unique. If the user specifies a change-id and there > > are multiple branches with such a change-id, we provide the user an > > error much like we do for abbreviated hashes. > > > > Is that what folks have in mind? If so, I'll be happy to drop my > > reservations about this aspect. > > Yes, that's close to what we have in mind. I think I just didn't > explain clearly that it's mostly harmless in at least Jujutsu if there > are multiple commits with the same change id. If there are multiple > visible commits with the same change id, then you'll just have to > decide what should happen when the user tries to refer to commits by > change id. We currently let it resolve to all the visible commits with > the given change id. resolve to all visible commits? So the Jujutsu equivalent of 'git switch <change-id>' would simultaneously check out N different branches? Or do commands which cannot accept multiple commits just throw an error in such a case? Doing a "git log --no-walk <change-id>" and have it resolve to several commits would be kinda cool... > We may change that to be an error instead [1]. > The user can always fall back to using the commit id in such cases. We > call change ids with multiple visible commits "divergent". They > currently show up in red in `jj log`, which I think we all agree makes > them seem unnecessarily scary. We'll probably change that soon [2] > [3]. > > So when I said that I think it's quite uncommon to have multiple > commits with the same change id, I didn't mean that as an excuse to > not consider the other cases at all. I just mean that I think the vast > majority of commits are not cherry-picked, so we don't need to > optimize the user experience for that case - it's fine if it's a bit > more complicated to refer to such commits. > > I hope that clarifies. Let me know if there are still unanswered > questions that I have missed. Yep, thanks, that answered all my previous questions...though you raised one new one that I mentioned above. > [1] https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/issues/5632 > [2] https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/pull/5800 > [3] https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/pull/5850
