Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:28:39 -0500 pull: fix inconsistent view of bookmarks during pull (issue4700)
Valentin Gatien-Baron <valentin.gatienbaron@gmail.com> [Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:28:39 -0500] rev 41054
pull: fix inconsistent view of bookmarks during pull (issue4700) I had a share where a pull apparently pulled a bookmark but not the revision pointed to by the bookmark, which I suspect is due to this (and if not, we might as well remove known issues in this area). I do this by combining doing all the queries that could read the bookmarks in one round trip. I had to change the handling of the case where the server doesn't support the lookup query, because if it fails, it would otherwise make fremotebookmark.result() block forever. This is due to wireprotov1peer.peerexecutor.sendcommands's behavior (it fills a single future if any query fails synchronously and leaves all other futures unchanged), but I don't know if the fix is to cancel all other futures, or to keep going with the other queries. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5449
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 13:16:25 +0530 merge: modify the logical statement
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 23 Dec 2018 13:16:25 +0530] rev 41053
merge: modify the logical statement Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5476
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 01:05:20 -0500 exthelper: correct a documentation typo
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sun, 23 Dec 2018 01:05:20 -0500] rev 41052
exthelper: correct a documentation typo
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:10:07 -0500 lfs: convert to using exthelper to wrap functions
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:10:07 -0500] rev 41051
lfs: convert to using exthelper to wrap functions I'm not 100% sure that upgraderequirements() can be double annotated safely, but it seems OK based on printing the address of the function being wrapped. One thing I've noticed is that @eh.reposetup doesn't do the usual check to ensure that it's a local repo. Should that be baked into @eh.reposetup() somehow, possibly with a non-default option to skip the check? It seems like a gaping hole if every function that gets registered needs to add this check.
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:39:55 -0500 tests: convert a test extension to use exthelper
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:39:55 -0500] rev 41050
tests: convert a test extension to use exthelper This provides test coverage to uipopulate().
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:44:24 -0500 exthelper: drop fileset/revset/template support for now
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:44:24 -0500] rev 41049
exthelper: drop fileset/revset/template support for now Yuya raised concerns about duplicating registrar functionality. There are a couple of ideas to work around this, which would allow bringing them back, and then backporting to evolve. For now, I just want to get the subsequent changes landed before the bulk b'' rewrite makes rebasing too hard.
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:26:36 -0500 exthelper: simplify configitem registration
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:26:36 -0500] rev 41048
exthelper: simplify configitem registration
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:06:24 -0500 extensions: import the exthelper class from evolve 980565468003 (API)
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:06:24 -0500] rev 41047
extensions: import the exthelper class from evolve 980565468003 (API) This should help make extensions that wrap a lot of stuff more comprehendible. It was copied unmodified, except: - fix up the imports - rename final_xxxsetup() -> finalxxxsetup() to appease checkcode - avoid a [] default arg to wrapcommand() .. api:: Add `exthelper` class to simplify extension writing by allowing functions, commands, and configitems to be registered via annotations. The previous APIs are still available for use.
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -8 +8 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip