Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:18:31 -0800 merge: move dr/rd warning messages out of applyupdates()
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:18:31 -0800] rev 23525
merge: move dr/rd warning messages out of applyupdates() As preparation for making 'dr' and 'rd' actions no longer actions, move the reporting from applyupdates() to its caller update(). This way we won't have to pass additonal arguments to applyupdates() when they are no longer actions. Also, the warnings are equally unrelated to applyupdates() as they are to recordupdates(), as they don't result in any changes to either the working copy or the dirstate. See earlier patch for additional motivation.
Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:13:26 -0800 merge: don't report progress for dr/rd actions
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:13:26 -0800] rev 23524
merge: don't report progress for dr/rd actions It is easier to reason about certain algorithms in terms of a file->action mapping than the current action->list-of-files. Bid merge is already written this way (but with a list of actions per file), and largefiles' overridecalculateupdates() will also benefit. However, that requires us to have at most one action per file. That requirement is currently violated by 'dr' (divergent rename) and 'rd' (rename and delete) actions, which can exist for the same file as some other action. These actions are only used for displaying warnings to the user; they don't change anything in the working copy or the dirstate. In this way, they are similar to the 'k' (keep) action. However, they are even less action-like than 'k' is: 'k' at least describes what to do with the file ("do nothing"), while 'dr' and 'rd' or only annotations for files for which there may exist other, "real" actions. As a first step towards separating these acitons out, stop including them in the progress output, just like we already exclude the 'k' action.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -2 +2 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip