discovery: avoid discovery when local graph is a subset of remote
Immediately sends local's heads to the server to check whether the server knows them all.
If it does, we can call getbundle immediately.
Interesting test output changes are:
- added 1 changesets with 0 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
+ added 1 changesets with 0 changes to 0 files (+1 heads)
-> The new getbundle() actually fixes a bug vs. changegroupsubset() in that it no longer
returns unnecessary files when file revs are reused.
warning: repository is unrelated
+ requesting all changes
-> The new use of common instead of bases correctly indicates that an unrelated pull
gets all changes from the server.
wireproto: add getbundle() function
getbundle(common, heads) -> bundle
Returns the changegroup for all ancestors of heads which are not ancestors of common. For both
sets, the heads are included in the set.
Intended to eventually supercede changegroupsubset and changegroup. Uses heads of common region
to exclude unwanted changesets instead of bases of desired region, which is more useful and
easier to implement.
Designed to be extensible with new optional arguments (which will have to be guarded by
corresponding capabilities).
i18n-pt_BR: synchronized with
6783f47d90dd
i18n-it: synchronized with
adf3c4401c5d
util: add Mac-specific check whether we're in a GUI session (
issue2553)
The previous test assumed that 'os.name' was "mac" on Mac OS X. This
is not the case; 'mac' was classic Mac OS, whereas Mac OS X has 'os.name'
be 'posix'.
Please note that this change will break Mercurial on hypothetical
non-Mac OS X deployments of Darwin.
Credit to Brodie Rao for thinking of CGSessionCopyCurrentDictionary()
and Kevin Bullock for testing.
rebase: allow for rebasing descendants onto ancestors on different named branches
So far we've been denying rebasing descendants onto ancestors, but there are
situations in which this kind of operation makes perfect sense to me.
Let's say we have made a commit (or more), that belongs to branch 'dev', on
top of the named branch 'stable':
... a (stable) - b (dev)
but then we realize that b should belong to branch 'stable'.
In these cases a rebase means: "move these csets from named branch A to named
branch B" and there isn't a valid reason to deny it.
This patch basically doesn't block it, if source and destination are
on different named branches.
The old behaviour still applies for rebases across the same named branch.
Can you think of any tricky corner cases in which this new behaviour could
lead to problems? (I bet there are tons of them...)
By the way, I created a brand new .t because I feel there should be more
tests I can't think of at the moment.
bdiff.c: use unsigned arithmetic for hash computation
Signed integer overflow is undefined in C.