Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:55:55 +0900 parser: reorder infix/suffix handling to be similar to prefix/primary flow
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:55:55 +0900] rev 25817
parser: reorder infix/suffix handling to be similar to prefix/primary flow It can be exactly the same flow as the prefix/primary handling. A suffix action is accepted only if the next token never starts new term.
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:09:27 +0900 parser: resolve ambiguity where both prefix and primary actions are defined
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:09:27 +0900] rev 25816
parser: resolve ambiguity where both prefix and primary actions are defined If both actions are defined, a primary-expression action is accepted only if the next token never starts new term. For example, parsed as primary expression: ":" # next token 'end' has no action "(:)" # next token ')' has no action ":+y" # next token '+' is infix operator parsed as prefix operator: ":y" # next token 'y' is primary expression ":-y" # next token '-' is prefix operator This is mostly the same resolution as the infix/suffix rules.
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:02:13 +0900 parser: separate actions for primary expression and prefix operator
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:02:13 +0900] rev 25815
parser: separate actions for primary expression and prefix operator This will allow us to define both a primary expression, ":", and a prefix operator, ":y". The ambiguity will be resolved by the next patch. Prefix actions in elements table are adjusted as follows: original prefix primary prefix ----------------- -------- ----------------- ("group", 1, ")") -> n/a ("group", 1, ")") ("negate", 19) -> n/a ("negate", 19) ("symbol",) -> "symbol" n/a
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:53:56 +0200 changelog: update read pending documentation
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:53:56 +0200] rev 25814
changelog: update read pending documentation The pending index contains a full copy of the index + in-transaction data. We replace "extend" with "overwrite" to make this clearer.
Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:43:10 -0400 extdiff: add support for subrepos
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:43:10 -0400] rev 25813
extdiff: add support for subrepos Git and svn subrepo support is incomplete, because they don't support archiving the working copy.
Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:48:51 -0400 extdiff: use archiver to take snapshots of committed revisions
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:48:51 -0400] rev 25812
extdiff: use archiver to take snapshots of committed revisions This is the last step before supporting extdiff -S. It maintains the existing behavior of diffing the largefile standins instead of the largefiles themselves. Note however that the standins are not updated immediately upon modification, so uncommitted largefile changes are ignored, as they previously were, even with the diff command.
Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:26:33 -0400 largefiles: allow the archiving of largefiles to be disabled
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:26:33 -0400] rev 25811
largefiles: allow the archiving of largefiles to be disabled There are currently no users of this, but it is a necessary step before converting extdiff to use archive. It may be useful to add an argument to extdiff in the future and allow largefiles to be diffed, but archiving largefiles can have significant overhead and may not be very diffable, so archiving them by default seems wrong. It is a mystery to me why the lfstatus attribute needs to be set on the unfiltered repo. However if it is set on the filtered repo instead (and the filtered repo is passed to the original command), the lfstatus attribute is False in the overrides for archival.archive() and hgsubrepo.archive() when invoking the archive command. This smells like the buggy status behavior (see 67d63ec85eb7, which was reverted in df463ca0adef). Neither the status nor summary commands have this weird behavior in their respective overrides.
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:36:08 +0900 parsers: fix buffer overflow by invalid parent revision read from revlog
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:36:08 +0900] rev 25810
parsers: fix buffer overflow by invalid parent revision read from revlog If revlog file is corrupted, it can have parent pointing to invalid revision. So we should validate it before updating nothead[], phases[], seen[], etc. Otherwise it would cause segfault at best. We could use "rev" instead of "maxrev" as upper bound, but I think the explicit "maxrev" can clarify that we just want to avoid possible buffer overflow vulnerability.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -8 +8 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip