Thu, 25 May 2017 19:38:00 +0200 test: add isolated prune case (to test-obsolete-bundle-strip.t)
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 25 May 2017 19:38:00 +0200] rev 32524
test: add isolated prune case (to test-obsolete-bundle-strip.t) This adds a test where the prune marker is not related to any other obsmarkers.
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:47 +0200 test-obsolete-bundle-strip: add a complex split and fold case
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:47 +0200] rev 32523
test-obsolete-bundle-strip: add a complex split and fold case This is a more complex case that checks the logic used when split and fold gets into play.
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:29 +0200 test-obsolete-bundle-strip: add cases with prune on missing revs
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:29 +0200] rev 32522
test-obsolete-bundle-strip: add cases with prune on missing revs Same as the previously added case, but the prune is no longer known locally. This will mostly matter for the strip testing. Introducing the test early will help clarify patches related to strip.
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:29 +0200 obsolete: fix relevant-obsmarkers computation on pruned changeset
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:29 +0200] rev 32521
obsolete: fix relevant-obsmarkers computation on pruned changeset The markers pruning a node was not directly considered relevant for the pruned node, only to its parents. This went unnoticed during obsmarkers exchange because all ancestors of the pruned node would be included in the computation. This still affects obsmarkers exchange a bit since "inline" prune markers would be ignored (see second test case). This went unnoticed, because in such case, we always push another obsolescence markers for that node. We add explicit tests covering this case. (The set of relevant changeset is use in the obsmarkers discovery protocol used in the evolve experimental extension, the impact will be handled on the extension side).
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:07 +0200 test: add a test file for relevant obsmarkers and its usage
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 25 May 2017 19:37:07 +0200] rev 32520
test: add a test file for relevant obsmarkers and its usage The logic around obsmarkers "relevant" to a set of revs have a couple of test around in other places but no systematic testing. In addition, all the current testing focus on the exchange case (we looks at relevant markers for '::heads'). For bundles, we'll need something a bit different. We'll no longer have set of revision going down to the repository roots. So we'll have to test these cases too. In addition, stripping obsmarkers will introduce new logic around obsmarkers that will need testing too. So a new test file make sense here. We start with a simple tests, more advanced cases are coming in the next changesets. The extra testing catch a minor bug (later in the series).
Wed, 24 May 2017 19:39:33 -0700 annotate: add a new experimental --skip option to skip revs
Siddharth Agarwal <sid0@fb.com> [Wed, 24 May 2017 19:39:33 -0700] rev 32519
annotate: add a new experimental --skip option to skip revs This option is most useful for mechanical code modifications, especially ones that retain the same number of lines.
Wed, 24 May 2017 19:07:14 -0700 annotate: add core algorithm to skip a rev
Siddharth Agarwal <sid0@fb.com> [Wed, 24 May 2017 19:07:14 -0700] rev 32518
annotate: add core algorithm to skip a rev The core algorithm is inspired by git hyper-blame, implemented at https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/tools/depot_tools.git/+/master/git_hyper_blame.py. The heuristic is as documented in the comments.
Wed, 24 May 2017 17:40:08 -0700 annotate: make pair take all parents to pair against
Siddharth Agarwal <sid0@fb.com> [Wed, 24 May 2017 17:40:08 -0700] rev 32517
annotate: make pair take all parents to pair against In upcoming patches we'll need to be aware of all parents at the same time. This also exposes a potential bug: if a line can be annotated with both parents of a merge commit, it'll always be annotated with p2, not p1. I'm not sure if that's what we want, but at least the code makes it clear now.
Wed, 24 May 2017 17:38:28 -0700 annotate: move pair function to top level
Siddharth Agarwal <sid0@fb.com> [Wed, 24 May 2017 17:38:28 -0700] rev 32516
annotate: move pair function to top level We'll want to make this more complicated and have unit tests for it in upcoming patches.
Thu, 25 May 2017 23:20:00 +0900 bookmarks: fix check of hash-like name to not abort by ambiguous identifier
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Thu, 25 May 2017 23:20:00 +0900] rev 32515
bookmarks: fix check of hash-like name to not abort by ambiguous identifier 'mark in repo' may raise LookupError. I set it to not be warned since bookmark names shorter than 4 chars aren't checked and short names are likely to be ambiguous.
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip