news from the topic experiment
gregory.szorc at gmail.com
Sat Oct 1 15:36:54 EDT 2016
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David <
> pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> >>> I assume this is along the spirit of your 'hg undo' for evolve (that
> >>> preserves the hash)?
> >> No. We are thinking about using topic to replace bookmark as the
> >> workflow at fb. People can get confused if local bookmarks point to
> >> changesets.
> > I would be happy to discuss that ;-)
> As would I. I’ve fielded several user complaints lately that boil down to
> wanting an ephemeral, user-selected name for each draft commit (a la what
> we had with mq patch names). I suspect topics might be able to fill that
> niche as well.
Many long-time Mercurial users at Mozilla still use MQ. Having talked to
many of them, many of their arguments for using MQ all have a common theme:
"it's simpler." Specifically:
* `hg qseries` provides a concise view of all their "in progress" work
* Individual commits have names which can be easily referenced - not some
random 12 character hexidecimal value
* The complexities of managing many active heads are hidden from them
(rebase, graft, log -G, etc)
* They like that they can edit patch files in .hg/patches if the VCS gets
in the way
It's worth noting that the Firefox repository has N heads spread out over M
repositories. The Nightly head is in a different repository from the Aurora
head from the Beta head, etc. While each repository shares the same root
changeset and can be pulled into a "unified" repository with multiple
heads, many developers only clone/pull a single repo/head. This means their
local repo only has a single head by default. And if you use MQ, your local
clone continues to only have a single head.
It is important to remember that there is a significant complexity jump
from a single head to multiple heads. Once you introduce multiple heads,
you need to understand:
* The concept of a DAG
* How to find multiple heads
* How to figure out which head you are on
* How to switch your working directory to a different head
* How to copy/move changesets between heads (graft, rebase, etc)
* How to combine multiple heads (merging)
* How to push only what you want to push
Mercurial makes many of these things difficult. For example:
* `hg log` shows changesets from multiple heads without any indication they
are from multiple heads. Contrast with `hg log -G` or `hg log -f`.
* Existing feature development methods except for MQ (branches and
bookmarks) lack a command that concisely lists *all* of "my" commits (`hg
branches` and `hg bookmarks` only list the tip-most changeset and don't
show the changeset author or description by default).
* `hg rebase` must be explicitly enabled. Some users think this means they
shouldn't be using it.
* `hg push` pushes all heads by default. Great if you are backing up your
work to a non-publishing repo. Bad if you are trying to land something to
the canonical repo.
* `hg update` and `hg pull -u`'s heuristic based model can result in
* No easy way to figure out how the current working directory revision
relates to the overall repo/DAG
Many of us have installed extensions, aliases, etc on our own machines or
have rolled these out to our users to pave over these deficiencies. That
works... where you have control to do that. It doesn't generally work in
open source: people are at the whim of what Mercurial supports out of the
Many of us also understand the concepts of distributed version control -
what the DAG is, how to interact with it, etc. It is really easy to lose
sight of the fact that most users simply want to get stuff done and they
don't care about the complexities. They will learn the minimum number of
commands required to accomplish what they set out to do. A version control
tool is a barrier to them getting actual work done. They will choose the
mechanism that is simplest and fastest.
Despite all of Mercurial's current deficiencies in this area, it's worth
noting that I think it's still better off than Git. If the leap from single
to multiple heads is hard, try introducing remote refs, tracking branches,
detached HEAD, the reflog, the staging area, etc. And on top of that add a
convoluted CLI that makes grasping the concepts difficult. Many of the
hardcore MQ users at Mozilla detest Git because it is too complex. Only
with a baptism of fire and likely a lot of hand holding do they warm up to
Git. And - get this - once they learn the power of the DAG, of rebasing and
interactive history editing, they fall in love. They think Mercurial's MQ
model is primitive. Then I show them how to do "Git like" multiple head
development in Mercurial and they're like "oh, this is basically the same
except there aren't the complexities of understanding refs, the staging
area, etc - this is quite nice."
I desperately want topics to be a compelling replacement for die hard MQ
users. That means that topics needs to maintain the simplicity of MQ as
much as possible. If people start with a single head repository, topics
needs to be as simple to use as MQ is, even if multiple topics do introduce
multiple heads in the DAG. Yet topics should also provide the features
needed by advanced users - those who fully understand how the DAG works and
how to manipulate changesets within it.
For the beginning user, Mercurial/topics needs to provide:
* A mechanism to show all active lines of work (list the topics) (and
possibly how they relate to each other and the underlying repository)
* A mechanism to show the current line of work (and possibly how it related
to the overall repository)
* A mechanism to show/search for unfinished changesets
* A mechanism to provide a human friendly name to a changeset
I think the existing topics experiment shows a ton of promise in these
areas. And as a bonus, the transition from a beginning topics user (1
published head, 1 topic) to more advanced scenarios is much better than
with MQ because you don't have to transition to different commands (away
from the q* MQ commands): you simply add more advanced commands like
"rebase" and "merge" to your skills set without having to relearn anything.
I also love how topics "fade away" when changesets become published. That's
such an improvement over having to manually delete things later. Just as
long as the user knows when their topics disappear...
There are still some areas for improving topics.
1) `hg log` still shows *all* changesets in the repository. This is
confusing for users that don't want to be burdened with the complexity of
multiple heads. I'd like the behavior of `hg log` to only show ancestors -
and possibly descendants - of the working directory changeset when the
working directory changeset is unpublished and has a topic. If we show
descendants, we should delimit the current changeset somehow, possibly by
making -G or a mode like it the default in this scenario. Realistically, I
think `hg log` should behave like `hg log -f` and `hg log --children`
should supplement that with descendants and a marking of the wdir
changeset. If there is a branch point in the descendants, we should
automatically add the graphical view because showing changesets from
multiple DAG heads without the graphical view is really confusing. I can
also make the argument that the graphical view should always be shown so
merge commits can be rendered properly.
2) There are ways to list all topics and to show the "stack" of changesets
relevant to what I'm working on. This is great. We're still lacking a way
to easily list and search "all my in progress work." I think something like
Jordi's `hg wip` alias, Facebook's `hg smartlog` or my proposed `hg
underway` formalization of these in the official distribution would go a
long way to addressing this need. I think this command is also an excellent
place to introduce beginner users to the DAG by rendering its graphical
shape as part of rendering multiple unpublished heads / topics. When people
see a concise view of all in progress work with the DAG shape, they can
start to understand how all the changesets relate to one another and how
commands like "rebase" work.
3) `hg topics` isn't showing any changeset metadata, such as the hash
fragment, author, or first N characters of commit message. I like how `hg
topics` is concise. But it is almost too concise. Not showing the author or
commit message means users need to type another command to figure out
what's actually in the topic. Not showing the changeset could mean some
power users wanting to perform advanced operations like grafting a single
changeset could have to perform a 2nd command in order to get the
information they need.
4) `hg commit` allows the creation of new, label-less heads (no bookmark,
topic, etc) or the creation of a divergent head on a topic. We should think
long and hard about disallowing this by default in some scenarios (such as
when a repo contains a topic authored by the user). We should also consider
issuing a warning when creating a commit that isn't tracked by any label
and providing a simple command to be printed in that warning that can
easily correct that "mistake." (I vaguely recall discussions about
"divergent" topics at various sprints, but I think it may have revolved
around push/pull behavior?) The goal here is we want to guide beginner
users to a single way of doing feature development. We want simple commands
like `hg topic` to list all their in-progress work. We don't want their
commits to fall through a crack into a "label-less" or "topic-less" world
where they need to learn a new "advanced" command to find them, especially
if the "advanced" command introduces them to more concepts, such as the
DAG. We want users to be introduced to new concepts when they choose to,
not when they make a mistake like failing to attach a topic to a commit.
Power users won't like being forced to use topics. We can have a config
flag to disable this. We can also provide `hg commit --force`.
5) `hg topics` feels like it could evolve to do too much. I like `hg stack`
being in its own world. I wonder if we could further separate the querying
pieces of `hg topics` from the manipulation pieces. I think it is important
for commands that make important changes to be isolated from commands that
6) `hg stack` needs some UX love. We could potentially also consolidate
various functionality for "show relevant changesets" into the same command
or suite of commands. Although I'd rather we not have a single command to
do too much or require users to type too many characters or require too
many concepts. In the `hg log` world, I've thought about a "magic log"
command where you could have single character prefixes to "log" as a
shortcut to enabling certain flags. e.g. `hg flog` == `hg log -f`, `hg
glog` = `hg log -G`, `hg gflog` = `hg log -G -f`. Perhaps we could
introduce `hg show <what>` to allow showing pre-defined, concise views of
topics, bookmarks, stack, unfinished work, etc. This would avoid command
proliferation while delimiting query commands from manipulation commands.
`hg help show` would also serve as a gateway to discover other "views" and
ways of doing things. `hg *show` would be reserved for shortcuts like `hg
tshow` = `hg show topics`. Just a thought.
OK. That's a long post. Hopefully I've given people things to think about.
I want to emphasize topics has a lot of promise and there's a lot to love
in its current implementation. I just hope we can leverage the opportunity
to solve some longstanding shortcomings in the user experience in the
process of implementing it. I hope we can design the experience such that
it is enjoyable for existing MQ users and especially to new users of
version control. If we can provide an experience that is compelling for new
users and provides an effective transition towards advanced features
without alienating power users, that will be a compelling reason to choose
Mercurial over other version control tools. I think topics has that
potential more than branches, bookmarks, and MQ ever did.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel