merge: undocument checkunknown and checkignored configs for 3.7 We've discovered an issue with this flag during certain kinds of rebases. When: (1) we're rebasing while currently on the destination commit, and (2) an untracked or ignored file F is currently in the working copy, and (3) the same file F is in a source commit, and (4) F has different contents in the source commit, then we'll try to merge the file rather than overwrite it. An earlier patch I sent honored the options for these situations as well. Unfortunately, rebases go through the same flow as the old, deprecated 'hg merge --force'. We'd rather not make any changes to 'hg merge --force' behavior, and there's no way from this point in the code to figure out whether we're in 'hg rebase' or 'hg merge --force'. Pierre-Yves David and I came up with the idea to split the 'force' flag up into 'force' for rebases, and 'forcemerge' for merge. Since this is a very disruptive change and we're in freeze mode, simply undocument the options for this release so that our hands aren't tied by BC concerns. We'll redocument them in the next release.

commands: advance current active bookmark at pull --update correctly Before this patch, "hg pull --update" doesn't advance current active bookmark correctly, if pulling itself doesn't advance it, even though "hg pull" + "hg update" does so. Existing test for "pull --update works the same as pull && update" in test-bookmarks.t doesn't examine this case, because pulling itself advance current active bookmark before actual updating the working directory in that test case. To advance current active bookmark at "hg pull --update" correctly, this patch examines 'movemarkfrom' instead of 'not checkout'. Even if 'not checkout' at the invocation of postincoming(), 'checkout' is overwritten by "the revision to update to" value returned by destutil.destupdate() in such case. Therefore, 'not checkout' condition means "update destination is revision #0", and isn't suitable for examining whether active bookmark should be advanced. Even though examination around "movemarkfrom == repo['.'].node()" may seem a little redundant just for this issue, this makes it easier to compare (and unify in the future, maybe) with the same logic to update bookmark at "hg update" below. if not ret and movemarkfrom: if movemarkfrom == repo['.'].node(): pass # no-op update elif bookmarks.update(repo, [movemarkfrom], repo['.'].node()): ui.status(_("updating bookmark %s\n") % repo._activebookmark) else: # this can happen with a non-linear update ui.status(_("(leaving bookmark %s)\n") % repo._activebookmark) bookmarks.deactivate(repo)

largefiles: prevent committing a missing largefile Previously, if the largefile was deleted at the time of a commit, the standin was silently not updated and its current state (possibly garbage) was recorded. The test makes it look like this is somewhat of an edge case, but the same thing happens when an `hg revert` followed by `rm` changes the standin. Aside from the second invocation of this in lfutil.updatestandinsbymatch() (which is what triggers this test case), the three other uses are guarded by dirstate checks for added or modified, or an existence check in the filesystem. So aborting in lfutil.updatestandins() should be safe, and will avoid silent skips in the future if this is used elsewhere.