Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:26:38 +0200 setdiscovery: stop limiting the number of local head we initially send
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:26:38 +0200] rev 42201
setdiscovery: stop limiting the number of local head we initially send In our testing this limitation provides now real gain and instead triggers pathological discovery timing for some repository with many heads. See inline documentation for details. Some timing below: Mozilla try repository, (~1M revs, ~35K heads), discovery between 2 clones with 100 head missing on each side before: ! wall 1.492111 comb 1.490000 user 1.450000 sys 0.040000 (best of 20) ! wall 1.813992 comb 1.820000 user 1.700000 sys 0.120000 (max of 20) ! wall 1.574326 comb 1.573500 user 1.522000 sys 0.051500 (avg of 20) ! wall 1.572583 comb 1.570000 user 1.520000 sys 0.050000 (median of 20) after: ! wall 1.147834 comb 1.150000 user 1.090000 sys 0.060000 (best of 20) ! wall 1.449144 comb 1.450000 user 1.330000 sys 0.120000 (max of 20) ! wall 1.204618 comb 1.202500 user 1.146500 sys 0.056000 (avg of 20) ! wall 1.194407 comb 1.190000 user 1.140000 sys 0.050000 (median of 20) pypy (~100 heads, 317 heads) discovery between clones with only 42 common heads before: ! wall 0.031653 comb 0.030000 user 0.030000 sys 0.000000 (best of 25) ! wall 0.055719 comb 0.050000 user 0.040000 sys 0.010000 (max of 25) ! wall 0.038939 comb 0.039600 user 0.038400 sys 0.001200 (avg of 25) ! wall 0.038660 comb 0.050000 user 0.040000 sys 0.010000 (median of 25) after: ! wall 0.018754 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (best of 49) ! wall 0.034505 comb 0.040000 user 0.030000 sys 0.010000 (max of 49) ! wall 0.019631 comb 0.019796 user 0.018367 sys 0.001429 (avg of 49) ! wall 0.019132 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (median of 49) Private repository (~1M revs, ~3K heads), discovery from a strip subset, about 100 changesets to be pulled. before: ! wall 1.837729 comb 1.840000 user 1.790000 sys 0.050000 (best of 20) ! wall 2.203468 comb 2.200000 user 2.100000 sys 0.100000 (max of 20) ! wall 2.049355 comb 2.048500 user 2.002500 sys 0.046000 (avg of 20) ! wall 2.035315 comb 2.040000 user 2.000000 sys 0.040000 (median of 20) after: ! wall 0.136598 comb 0.130000 user 0.110000 sys 0.020000 (best of 20) ! wall 0.330519 comb 0.330000 user 0.260000 sys 0.070000 (max of 20) ! wall 0.157254 comb 0.155500 user 0.123000 sys 0.032500 (avg of 20) ! wall 0.149870 comb 0.140000 user 0.110000 sys 0.030000 (median of 20) Same private repo, discovery between two clone with 500 different heads on each side: before: ! wall 2.372919 comb 2.370000 user 2.320000 sys 0.050000 (best of 20) ! wall 2.622422 comb 2.610000 user 2.510000 sys 0.100000 (max of 20) ! wall 2.450135 comb 2.450000 user 2.402000 sys 0.048000 (avg of 20) ! wall 2.443896 comb 2.450000 user 2.410000 sys 0.040000 (median of 20) after: ! wall 0.625497 comb 0.620000 user 0.570000 sys 0.050000 (best of 20) ! wall 0.834723 comb 0.820000 user 0.730000 sys 0.090000 (max of 20) ! wall 0.675725 comb 0.675500 user 0.628000 sys 0.047500 (avg of 20) ! wall 0.671614 comb 0.680000 user 0.640000 sys 0.040000 (median of 20)
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:56:30 +0200 peer: introduce a limitedarguments attributes
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:56:30 +0200] rev 42200
peer: introduce a limitedarguments attributes When set to True, it signal that the peer cannot receive too larges arguments and that algorithm must adapt. This should only be True for http peer that does not support argument passed as "post". This will be useful to unlock better discovery performance in the next changesets. I am using a dedicated argument because this is not really a usual "capabilities" things. An alternative approach would be to adds a "large-arguments" to all peer, but the http peers. That seemed a bit too hacky to me.
Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:06:53 +0100 verify: also check full manifest validity during verify runs
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:06:53 +0100] rev 42199
verify: also check full manifest validity during verify runs Before this changes, `hg verify` only checked if a manifest revision existed and referenced the proper files. However it never checked the manifest revision content itself. Mercurial is expecting manifest entries to be sorted and will crash otherwise. Since `hg verify` did not attempted a full restoration of manifest entry, it could ignore this kind of corruption. This new check significantly increases the cost of a `hg verify` run. This especially affects large repository not using `sparse-revlog`. For now, this is hidden behind the `--full` experimental flag.
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 01:11:09 +0200 verify: introduce an experimental --full flag
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 17 Apr 2019 01:11:09 +0200] rev 42198
verify: introduce an experimental --full flag The flag currently has no effect, see next changeset for details. We introduce the flag as experimental to keep the freedom of changing our mind on the final UI. Note: this patch highlight a small but in `hg help`. An option section is generated even if no option are visible.
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 01:12:21 +0200 verify: introduce a notion of "level"
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 17 Apr 2019 01:12:21 +0200] rev 42197
verify: introduce a notion of "level" Some checks are slower than others, to help the user to run the checks he needs, we are about to introduce new flag to select faster vs deeper runs. This put the scaffolding in place to do this.
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 23:18:56 -0700 tests: split out separate test for issue5020
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Sat, 13 Apr 2019 23:18:56 -0700] rev 42196
tests: split out separate test for issue5020 The test was added to the existing setup in 41f6af50c0d8 (merge: fix crash on criss cross merge with dir move and delete (issue5020), 2017-01-31). I'm about to make a change that affects that test and it's much easier to follow if the test case for issue5020 is a separate test case. The separate test case is based on what mpm provided in comment 12 on the issue. `hg diff -r 41f6af50c0d8^ tests/test-merge-criss-cross.t` after this patch is pretty small (besides the added test). It's probably easier for reviewers to look at that than to try to understand the diff itself (I don't understand it). Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6243
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:04:54 -0700 tests: avoid a rename/delete conflict when updating in test-narrow-update.t
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Mon, 15 Apr 2019 18:04:54 -0700] rev 42195
tests: avoid a rename/delete conflict when updating in test-narrow-update.t After the upcoming rewrite of mergecopies(), this test would otherwise (accurately) start warning about "inside/f1 was deleted and renamed". Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6254
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:28:41 -0700 tests: delete unused function in test-rename-merge2.t
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:28:41 -0700] rev 42194
tests: delete unused function in test-rename-merge2.t Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6253
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:46:40 -0700 tests: make merge conflicts explicit in `hg annotate` tests
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:46:40 -0700] rev 42193
tests: make merge conflicts explicit in `hg annotate` tests We were using `true` as merge tool. I think it makes the test easier to understand if we make the conflicts explcit. It also papered over a conflict that shouldn't have been a conflict (just a bug in copy tracing). I've marked that "BROKEN". Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6252
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:05:42 +0530 narrow: make warning about possibly dirty files respect ui.relative-paths
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:05:42 +0530] rev 42192
narrow: make warning about possibly dirty files respect ui.relative-paths Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6264
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip