hg-stable: Changelog

exchangev2: fetch manifest revisions Now that the server has support for retrieving manifest data, we can implement the client bits to call it. We teach the changeset fetching code to capture the manifest revisions that are encountered on incoming changesets. We then feed this into a new function which filters out known manifests and then batches up manifest data requests to the server. This is different from the previous wire protocol in a few notable ways. First, the client fetches manifest data separately and explicitly. Before, we'd ask the server for data pertaining to some changesets (via a "getbundle" command) and manifests (and files) would be sent automatically. Providing an API for looking up just manifest data separately gives clients much more flexibility for manifest management. For example, a client may choose to only fetch manifest data on demand instead of prefetching it (i.e. partial clone). Second, we send N commands to the server for manifest retrieval instead of 1. This property has a few nice side-effects. One is that the deterministic nature of the requests lends itself to server-side caching. For example, say the remote has 50,000 manifests. If the server is configured to cache responses, each time a new commit arrives, you will have a cache miss and need to regenerate all outgoing data. But if you makes N requests requesting 10,000 manifests each, a new commit will still yield cache hits on the initial, unchanged manifest batches/requests. A derived benefit from these properties is that resumable clone is conceptually simpler to implement. When making a monolithic request for all of the repository data, recovering from an interrupted clone is hard because the server was in the driver's seat and was maintaining state about all the data that needed transferred. With the client driving fetching, the client can persist the set of unfetched entities and retry/resume a fetch if something goes wrong. Or we can fetch all data N changesets at a time and slowly build up a repository. This approach is drastically easier to implement when we have server APIs exposing low-level repository primitives (such as manifests and files). We don't yet support tree manifests. But it should be possible to implement that with the existing wire protocol command. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4489

wireprotov2: define and implement "manifestdata" command The added command can be used for obtaining manifest data. Given a manifest path and set of manifest nodes, data about manifests can be retrieved. Unlike changeset data, we wish to emit deltas to describe manifest revisions. So the command uses the relatively new API for building delta requests and emitting them. The code calls into deltaparent(), which I'm not very keen of. There's still work to be done in delta generation land so implementation details of storage (e.g. exactly one delta is stored/available) don't creep into higher levels. But we can worry about this later (there is already a TODO on imanifestorage tracking this). On the subject of parent deltas, the server assumes parent revisions exist on the receiving end. This is obviously wrong for shallow clone. I've added TODOs to add a mechanism to the command to allow clients to specify desired behavior. This shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Another big change is that the client must explicitly request manifest nodes to retrieve. This is a major departure from "getbundle," where the server derives relevant manifests as it iterates changesets and sends them automatically. As implemented, the client must transmit each requested node to the server. At 20 bytes per node, we're looking at 2 MB per 100,000 nodes. Plus wire encoding overhead. This isn't ideal for clients with limited upload bandwidth. I plan to address this in the future by allowing alternate mechanisms for defining the revisions to retrieve. One idea is to define a range of changeset revisions whose manifest revisions to retrieve (similar to how "changesetdata" works). We almost certainly want an API to look up an individual manifest by node. And that's where I've chosen to start with the implementation. Again, a theme of this early exchangev2 work is I want to start by building primitives for accessing raw repository data first and see how far we can get with those before we need more complexity. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4488