exthelper: reintroduce the ability to register revsets I think this is what Yuya and Boris agreed on.[1] This happens *after* the extsetup phase now (and after the _aftercallback notifications). But this is trivial, mergeable between exthelper instances, and doesn't need to have the extension name supplied when registering. The test needed updating so that extsetup() takes a `ui` argument, as exthelper isn't trying to be backward compatible with 1.3.1. [1] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2018-December/125888.html

largefiles: drop the uisetup module This is small enough to live in the __init__ module.

branches: add -r option to show branch name(s) of a given rev (issue5948) Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5486

progress: avoid ui.configbool() lookup when progress bar is active Profiling revealed that the ui.configbool('progress', 'debug') during progress bar updates was consuming a significant amount of overhead. This commit adds an attribute on progress bar instances that caches this config option. The impact on `hg perfprogress` with default options is significant: before: ! wall 4.641942 comb 4.580000 user 4.210000 sys 0.370000 (best of 3) after: ! wall 1.948626 comb 1.950000 user 1.950000 sys 0.000000 (best of 5) After this change, profiling reveals that progress.progbar.progress() is now consuming ~73% of time. This change does not improve the execution time if the progress bar is disabled. We may want a more comprehensive solution for that case, as the progress bar won't be enabled in a number of scenarios (e.g. servers and processes not attached to an interactive TTY). I also think that overhead of ~2.0s for 1M updates is a bit high. I suspect further refactoring of the progress bar can significantly reduce overhead. I don't have plans to do this, however. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5408