Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:52:31 -0400 merge: run update hook after the last wlock release stable
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:52:31 -0400] rev 24881
merge: run update hook after the last wlock release There were 2 test failures in 3.4-rc when running test-hook.t with the largefiles extension enabled. For context, the first is a commit hook: @@ -618,9 +621,9 @@ $ echo 'update = hg id' >> .hg/hgrc $ echo bb > a $ hg ci -ma - 223eafe2750c tip + d3354c4310ed+ $ hg up 0 - cb9a9f314b8b + 223eafe2750c+ tip 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved make sure --verbose (and --quiet/--debug etc.) are propagated to the local ui In both cases, largefiles acquires the wlock before calling into core, which also acquires the wlock. The first case was fixed in 57f1dbc99631 by ensuring the hook only runs after the lock has been fully released. The full release is important, because that is what writes dirstate to the disk, allowing external hooks to see the result of the update. This simply changes how the update hook is called, so that it too is deferred until the lock is finally released. There are many uses of mergemod.update(), but in terms of commands, it looks like the following commands take wlock while calling mergemod.update(), and therefore will now have their hook fired at a later time: backout, fetch, histedit, qpush, rebase, shelve, transplant Unlike the others, fetch immediately unlocks after calling update(), so for all intents and purposes, its hook invocation is not deferred (but the external hook still sees the proper state).
Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:39:39 +0900 censor: remove meaningless explanation about .hgcensored stable
FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy@lares.dti.ne.jp> [Thu, 30 Apr 2015 03:39:39 +0900] rev 24880
censor: remove meaningless explanation about .hgcensored There is no code path handling ".hgcensored" in Mercurial source tree. This meaningless explanation may make users misunderstand about censor.
Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:07:34 +0900 parsers: avoid signed integer overflow in calculation of leaf-node index stable
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> [Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:07:34 +0900] rev 24879
parsers: avoid signed integer overflow in calculation of leaf-node index If v = -INT_MAX - 1, -v would exceed INT_MAX. I don't think this would cause problems such as issue4627, but we can't blame it as a compiler bug because signed integer overflow is undefined in C.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -3 +3 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip