tests/test-issue1089.t

nodemap: gate the feature behind a new requirement

Now that the feature is working smoothly, a question was still open, should we
gate the feature behind a new requirement or just treat it as a cache to be
warmed by those who can and ignored by other.

The advantage of using the cache approach is a transparent upgrade/downgrade
story, making the feature easier to move to. However having out of date cache
can come with a significant performance hit for process who expect an up to
date cache but found none. In this case the file needs to be stored under
`.hg/cache`.

The "requirement" approach guarantee that the persistent nodemap is up to date.
However, it comes with a less flexible activation story since an explicite
upgrade is required. In this case the file can be stored in `.hg/store`.

This wiki page is relevant to this questions:

  https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ComputedIndexPlan

So which one should we take? Another element came into plan, the persistent
nodemap use the `add` method of the transaction, it is used to keep track of a
file content before a transaction in case we need to rollback it back. It turns
out that the `transaction.add` API does not support file stored anywhere than
`.hg/store`. Making it support file stored elsewhere is possible, require a
change in on disk transaction format. Updating on disk file requires…
introducing a new requirements.

As a result, we pick the second option "gating the persistent nodemap behind a
new requirements".

Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8417

https://bz.mercurial-scm.org/1089

  $ hg init
  $ mkdir a
  $ echo a > a/b
  $ hg ci -Am m
  adding a/b

  $ hg rm a
  removing a/b
  $ hg ci -m m a

  $ mkdir a b
  $ echo a > a/b
  $ hg ci -Am m
  adding a/b

  $ hg rm a
  removing a/b
  $ cd b

Relative delete:

  $ hg ci -m m ../a

  $ cd ..