Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:53:58 -0500] rev 41072
largefiles: eliminate an unnecessary import of configitems
Thanks to Yuya for pointing this out.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:51:02 -0500] rev 41071
exthelper: add some examples for using registrar aliases
Maybe it's my general lack of python knowledge, but how to use these would be
way too obscure for me otherwise.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Thu, 27 Dec 2018 23:46:35 -0500] rev 41070
exthelper: reintroduce the ability to register filesets
Same mechanism as revsets earlier in this series. The LFS extension is updated
to provide test coverage.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:55:22 -0500] rev 41069
exthelper: reintroduce the ability to register templates
Same mechanism as revsets earlier in this series. The LFS extension is updated
to provide test coverage.
This also seems to make the test failure around
issue6033 mentioned in
0a7f582f6f1f much less regular on Windows.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:46:03 -0500] rev 41068
extensions: deprecate extsetup without a `ui` argument (API)
9.5 years should be enough time, but there were some tests for the old style
still (which are now updated). Exthelper doesn't fallback to the old API, so
this is for consistency.
.. api::
The extension hook ``extsetup`` without a `ui` argument has been deprecated,
and will be removed in the next version. Add a `ui` argument to avoid the
deprecation warning.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:27:43 -0500] rev 41067
largefiles: port revset registration to exthelper
This tests the merge code that wasn't tested in the previous patch.
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Thu, 27 Dec 2018 21:26:17 -0500] rev 41066
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
Matt Harbison <matt_harbison@yahoo.com> [Sun, 23 Dec 2018 23:01:51 -0500] rev 41065
largefiles: drop the uisetup module
This is small enough to live in the __init__ module.
Navaneeth Suresh <navaneeths1998@gmail.com> [Mon, 24 Dec 2018 17:04:37 +0530] rev 41064
branches: add -r option to show branch name(s) of a given rev (
issue5948)
Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5486
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:06:58 +0000] rev 41063
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