Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:13:16 +0300 py3: add one more passing test to whitelist caught by buildbot
Pulkit Goyal <pulkit@yandex-team.ru> [Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:13:16 +0300] rev 39924
py3: add one more passing test to whitelist caught by buildbot Thanks to Matt Harbison who fixed the remaining failures of this test. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4814
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:06:32 +0200 cleanupnodes: pass multiple predecessors to `createmarkers` directly
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:06:32 +0200] rev 39923
cleanupnodes: pass multiple predecessors to `createmarkers` directly
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 14:40:33 +0200 obsolete: allow multiple predecessors in createmarkers
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Sat, 22 Sep 2018 14:40:33 +0200] rev 39922
obsolete: allow multiple predecessors in createmarkers The logic for this change is similar to the change to `cleanupnodes` that we did earlier. Now that the rebase code is trying to record a fold, we need to actually record it in the markers. The first step is to have the markers creation API able to receive such fold data. To keep things sane, we restrict fold to on successors.
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:03:09 +0200 obsolete: preindent code in createmarkers
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:03:09 +0200] rev 39921
obsolete: preindent code in createmarkers This will help to make the next change clearer.
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:37:43 +0200 obsolete: explicitly pass relation items to effectflag computation
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:37:43 +0200] rev 39920
obsolete: explicitly pass relation items to effectflag computation To track folds, we are about to change the content of `rel`. To simplify this change, we update the `geteffectflag` function beforehand.
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:45:44 +0200 rebase: explicitly track collapses as fold
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:45:44 +0200] rev 39919
rebase: explicitly track collapses as fold A collapse is a large fold. It is now explicitly tracked (at the cleanupnodes API level).
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:51:11 +0200 rebase: use tuple as `replacement` keys
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:51:11 +0200] rev 39918
rebase: use tuple as `replacement` keys Now that `cleanupnodes` support tuples as key, we update the rebase code to use them. No changes in the replacement tracked are introduced yet.
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:15:21 +0200 rebase: expand a long "one-liner"
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:15:21 +0200] rev 39917
rebase: expand a long "one-liner" When a one-liner gets 3 lines longs, it lose its expressivity benefits. We expand it into a simple for loop. This makes future changes of the code in that area clearer.
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:28:21 +0200 cleanupnodes: drop special casing around prune markers (API)
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:28:21 +0200] rev 39916
cleanupnodes: drop special casing around prune markers (API) The `cleanupnodes` has logic to skip the creation of "prune" markers if the changeset is already obsolete. This feels strange and gets in the way of code changes to tracks folds. Now that callers no longer request such prune, we can drop this logic. In many cases, pruning through cleanupnodes should be replaced by internal phase usage.
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:05:28 +0200 rebase: don't try to prune obsolete changeset already in the destination
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:05:28 +0200] rev 39915
rebase: don't try to prune obsolete changeset already in the destination With similar motivations to the previous changesets, we stop marking changeset from pruning when it is not the command intention. In this case, we still need to distinguish between the strip and the obsolete case.
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip