commit: update the --secret code to use backupconfig and restoreconfig Those dedicated methods also preserve all associated data (eg: sources, lack of value).

rebase: do not retract phase boundary by hand We rely on the internal mechanism to commit the changeset in the right phase. This similar to what the mq extension is doing. This is an important change as we plan to includes phase movement within the transaction. Avoiding phase movement from high-level code will avoid the burden of transaction handling. It is also important to limit the need for transaction handling as this limits the odds of people messing up. Most common expected mess-up is code using a different transaction for changeset creation and phase adjustment.

config: fix restoreconfig of non existing config When the section, but no value existed, the `del` call raised a key error.

push: use stepsdone for obsmarkers push We do not have infrastructure to include obsolescence markers in the bundle2 push from core. But extensions may so we make sure it would not be sent twice.

push: introduce a discovery step for obsmarker The discovery step is still not doing anything smart. But this will allow extension to wrap it.

push: move the list of obsmarker to push into the push operation The list is now carried in the push operation, this will let extensions override it.

push: explicitly encode a list of obsmarkers to push Sending obsmarkers through pushkey requires extra encoding (since pushkey can't take binary content) and slicing (since we can hit http header limit). As we send all obsolescences markers that exists in the repo for each push, we used to just look at the content of the "obsolete" pushkey namespace (already encoded and sliced) and send its content. However, future changeset will make it possible to push only parts of the obsmarkers. To prepare this we now explicitly encode a list of markers. The list of markers is still "all of them" but future changeset will takes care of that. The new code uses a "_protected" method but that seems reasonable to keep it private as this is the is the only external user of it and this whole pushing obsmarker through pushkey things in fairly hacky already)

merge-tools: add a `premerge=keep-merge3` config option This value leaves premerge markers that includes the merge base too. This is a the same as what `internal:merge3` would do.

merge-tools: make premerge valid values extensible We want to introduce a version leaving merge3 style markers.

mergetools: add a test for premerge --keep It works! No surprise.

test-merge-tools: introduce a "revision 4" that merges with conflict We need conflicts to test the premerge=keep configuration.

merge: add an internal:merge3 tool This variant gives access to a feature already present in ``internal:merge``: displaying merge base content. In the basic merge (calling ``hg merge``) case, including more context to the merge markers is an interesting addition. But this extra information is the only viable option in case conflict from grafting (, rebase, etc…). When grafting ``source`` on ``destination``, the parent of ``source`` is used as the ``base``. When all three changesets add content in the same location, the marker for ``source`` will contains both ``base`` and ``source`` content. Without the content of base exposed, there is no way for the user to discriminate content coming from ``base`` and content commit from ``source``. Practical example (all addition are in the same place): * ``destination`` adds ``Dest-Content`` * ``base`` adds ``Base-Content`` * ``source`` adds ``Src-Content`` Grafting ``source`` on ``destination`` will produce the following conflict: <<<<<<< destination Dest-Content ======= Base-Content Src-Content >>>>>>> source This that case there is no way to distinct ``base`` from ``source``. As a result content from ``base`` are likely to slip in the resolution result. However, adding the base make the situation very clear: <<<<<<< destination Dest-Content ||||||| base Base-Content ======= base Base-Content Src-Content >>>>>>> source Once the base is added, the addition from the grafted changeset is made clear. User can compare the content from ``base`` and ``source`` to make an enlightened decision during merge resolution.

internal:merge: update documentation Highlight the fact there are two regions in the markers and what their contents are. This prepares for the arrival of merge3.

filemerge: allow the formatting of three labels instead of two When a third label is provided (to included the base content) it is properly processed as the two others. Nothing changes if only two labels are provided.

filemerge: drop extra white space There should be no white space around the brace.

simplemerge: support three labels when merging If a third label is provided it will be used for the "base" content: <<<<<<< local content from local ||||||| base former common ======= other conflicting >>>>>>> other

simplemerge: burn "minimal" feature to the ground Matt Mackall said: The goal of simplemerge should have always been to be a drop-in replacement for RCS merge. Please nuke this minimization thing entirely. This whole things is now dead.

merge: use no-minimal for premerge too ecc1387138ba disabled minimal for `internal:merge` but forgot to also disabled it for premerge. This is now done. This gives me an occasion to shamelessly includes my explanation of why this minimisation feature must disappear: [this is why it's pointless to reject patches with misspellings in the description - mpm] Detailled explanation ===================== The ``simplemerge`` code use in ``internal:merge`` has a feature called "minimization". It reprocess conflicting chunks to find common changes inside them and excludes such common sections from the marker. This approach seems a significant win at first glance but produces very confusing results in some other cases. Simple example -------------- A simple example is enough to show the benefit of this feature. In this merge, both sides change all numbers from letters to digits, but one side is also changing some values. $ cat << EOF > base > Small Mathematical Series. > One > Two > Three > Four > Five > Hop we are done. > EOF $ cat << EOF > local > Small Mathematical Series. > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > Hop we are done. > EOF $ cat << EOF > other > Small Mathematical Series. > 1 > 2 > 3 > 6 > 8 > Hop we are done. > EOF In the minimalists case, the markers focus on the disagreement between the two sides. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print local base other Small Mathematical Series. 1 2 3 <<<<<<< local 4 5 ======= 6 8 >>>>>>> other Hop we are done. warning: conflicts during merge. [1] In the non minimalist case, the whole chunk is included in the conflict marker. Making it harder spot actual differences. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print --no-minimal local base other Small Mathematical Series. <<<<<<< local 1 2 3 4 5 ======= 1 2 3 6 8 >>>>>>> other Hop we are done. warning: conflicts during merge. [1] Practical Advantages of minimalisation: merge of grafted change --------------------------------------------------------------- This feature can be very useful when a change have been grafted in another branch and then some change have been made to the grafted code. $ cat << EOF > base > # empty file > EOF $ cat << EOF > local > def somefunction(one, two): > some = one > stuff = two > are(happening) > here() > EOF $ cat << EOF > other > def somefunction(one, two): > some = one > change = two > are(happening) > here() > EOF The minimalist case recognises the grafted content as similar and highlight the actual change. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print local base other def somefunction(one, two): some = one <<<<<<< local stuff = two ======= change = two >>>>>>> other are(happening) here() warning: conflicts during merge. [1] Again, the non-minimalist case produces a larger conflict. Making it harder to spot the actual conflict. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print --no-minimal local base other <<<<<<< local def somefunction(one, two): some = one stuff = two are(happening) here() ======= def somefunction(one, two): some = one change = two are(happening) here() >>>>>>> other warning: conflicts during merge. [1] Practical disadvantage: multiple functions on each side --------------------------------------------------------------- So, if this "minimalist" help so much, why introduce a setting to disable it? The issue is that this minimisation will grab any common lines for breaking chunks. This may result in partial context when solving a merge. The most simple example is a merge where both side added some (different) functions separated by blank lines. The "minimalist" approach will recognise the blank line as "common" and over slice the chunks, turning a simple conflict case into multiple pairs of conflicting functions. $ cat << EOF > base > # empty file > EOF $ cat << EOF > local > def function1(): > bla() > bla() > bla() > > def function2(): > ble() > ble() > ble() > EOF $ cat << EOF > other > def function3(): > bli() > bli() > bli() > > def function4(): > blo() > blo() > blo() > EOF The minimal case presents each function as a separated context. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print local base other <<<<<<< local def function1(): bla() bla() bla() ======= def function3(): bli() bli() bli() >>>>>>> other <<<<<<< local def function2(): ble() ble() ble() ======= def function4(): blo() blo() blo() >>>>>>> other warning: conflicts during merge. [1] The non-minimalist approach produces a simpler version with more context in each block. Solving such conflicts is usually as simple as dropping the 3 lines dedicated to markers. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --prin --no-minimal local base other <<<<<<< local def function1(): bla() bla() bla() def function2(): ble() ble() ble() ======= def function3(): bli() bli() bli() def function4(): blo() blo() blo() >>>>>>> other warning: conflicts during merge. [1] Practical disaster: programing language have a lot of common line ================================================================= If only blank lines between function where the only frequent content of a code file. But programming language tend to repeat them self much more often. In that case, the minimalist approach turns a simple conflict into a massive mess. Consider this example where two unrelated functions are added on each side. Those function shares common programming constructs by chance. $ cat << EOF > base > # empty file > EOF $ cat << EOF > local > def longfunction(): > if bla: > foo > else: > bar > try: > ret = some stuff > except Exception: > ret = None > if ret is not None: > return ret > return 0 > > def shortfunction(foo): > goo() > ret = foo + 5 > return ret > EOF $ cat << EOF > other > def otherlongfunction(): > for x in xxx: > if coin: > break > tutu > else: > bar() > baz() > ret = week() > try: > groumpf = tutu > fool() > except Exception: > zoo() > pool() > if cond: > return ret > > # some big block > ret ** 6 > koin() > return ret > EOF The minimalist approach will hash the whole conflict into small chunks that does not match any meaningful semantic and are impossible to solve. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --print local base other <<<<<<< local def longfunction(): if bla: foo ======= def otherlongfunction(): for x in xxx: if coin: break tutu >>>>>>> other else: <<<<<<< local bar ======= bar() baz() ret = week() >>>>>>> other try: <<<<<<< local ret = some stuff ======= groumpf = tutu fool() >>>>>>> other except Exception: <<<<<<< local ret = None if ret is not None: ======= zoo() pool() if cond: >>>>>>> other return ret <<<<<<< local return 0 ======= >>>>>>> other <<<<<<< local def shortfunction(foo): goo() ret = foo + 5 ======= # some big block ret ** 6 koin() >>>>>>> other return ret warning: conflicts during merge. [1] The non minimalist approach will properly produce a single set of conflict markers. Highlighting that the two chunk are unrelated. Such conflict from unrelated content added at the same place is usually solved by dropping the marker an keeping both content. Something impossible with minimised markers. $ $TESTDIR/../contrib/simplemerge --prin --no-minimal local base other <<<<<<< local def longfunction(): if bla: foo else: bar try: ret = some stuff except Exception: ret = None if ret is not None: return ret return 0 def shortfunction(foo): goo() ret = foo + 5 return ret ======= def otherlongfunction(): for x in xxx: if coin: break tutu else: bar() baz() ret = week() try: groumpf = tutu fool() except Exception: zoo() pool() if cond: return ret # some big block ret ** 6 koin() return ret >>>>>>> other warning: conflicts during merge. [1]

merge: refactor labels selection code The code is simplified to prepare the future introduction of a third labels for the merge base.

push: include phase push in the unified bundle2 push Phase push is now included in the same bundle2 push as changesets. We use multiple pushkey parts to transmit the information. Note that phase moves are still not part of the repository "transaction".

push: perform phases discovery before the push This will allow including phase information in the same bundle2 as the changesets.

push: make discovery extensible We need to gather all discovery before the unified bundle2 push. We use the same pattern as bundle2 parts generation.

push: rework the bundle2partsgenerators logic Instead of a single list of functions, we now have a list of names and a mapping of names to functions. This simplifies wrapping of steps from extensions. In the same move, declaration becomes decorator-based (syntax sugar, nom nom nom!).

push: move common heads computation into pushop Now that both options (push succeed or fall back) live in pushop, we can move the common heads computation there too. It is a very commonly accessed attribute so it makes a lot of sense to have it in pushop.

push: extract fallback heads computation into pushop Similar motivation to `futureheads`, we extract the computation into pushop to make it available early to all possibly interested parties.

push: extract future heads computation into pushop Bundle2 will allow pushing all different parts of the push in a single bundle. This mean that the discovery for each part needs to be done before trying to push. Currently we may have different behaviors for phases and obsolescence markers when the push of changesets fails. For example, information may still be exchanged for a part of the history where changesets are common but where phases mismatch. So the preparation of the push need to determine what information need to be pushed in both situations. And it needs a different set of heads for this. Therefore we are moving heads computation within pushop for easy access by all parties. We start with the simplest set of heads.

cmdutil: use '[committemplate]' section like as map file for style definition Before this patch, each template definitions for 'changeset*' in '[committemplate]' section have to be written fully from scratch, even though many parts of them may be common. This patch uses '[committemplate]' section like as the map file for the style definition. All items other than 'changeset' can be referred from others. This can reduce total cost of template customization in '[committemplate]' section. When the commit template other than '[committemplate] changeset' is chosen by 'editform', putting '[committemplate] changeset' value into the cache of the templater causes unexpected result, because the templater stores the specified (= chosen) template definition into own cache as 'changeset' at construction time. This is the reason why '[committemplate] changeset' can't be referred from others.

cmdutil: look commit template definition up by specified 'editform' Before this patch, '[committemplate] changeset' definition is shared between all actions invoking 'commitforceeditor()'. This prevents template definition from showing action specific messages: for example, 'hg tag --remove' may need specific message to call attention, but showing it may be redundant for other actions. This patch looks commit template definition up by specified 'editform' introduced by prior patches. 'editform' are dot-separated list of names, and treated as hierarchical one.