Wed, 07 May 2014 19:28:17 -0700 exchange: propagate arguments to the _getbundleextrapart function stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Wed, 07 May 2014 19:28:17 -0700] rev 21582
exchange: propagate arguments to the _getbundleextrapart function The arguments was wrongly propagated (again). This a backport of 0055b5b3eb9c
Wed, 07 May 2014 17:20:38 -0700 bundle2: fix configuration name mismatch stable
Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> [Wed, 07 May 2014 17:20:38 -0700] rev 21581
bundle2: fix configuration name mismatch During pulls bundle2 was checking server.bundle2, but during pushes it was checking experimental.bundle2. This makes them both experimental.bundle2. This is a backport of 750c7c14a637
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:02:39 +1100 discovery: if a push would create a new head, mention the bookmark name if any
Stephen Lee <sphen.lee@gmail.com> [Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:02:39 +1100] rev 21580
discovery: if a push would create a new head, mention the bookmark name if any
Wed, 14 May 2014 10:38:05 -0700 revert: use p2 as parent when reverting against it
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Wed, 14 May 2014 10:38:05 -0700] rev 21579
revert: use p2 as parent when reverting against it revert was always using p1 as parent. This created some minor misbehavior when reverting against p2. See test change for an example of that. This is also a useful cleanup for coming refactoring to revert.
Wed, 14 May 2014 10:37:25 -0700 revert: explicitly get status against the parent
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Wed, 14 May 2014 10:37:25 -0700] rev 21578
revert: explicitly get status against the parent This makes absolutely no functional changes. The default value for node1 is already the same as the current value of parent. But to be able to properly use the second parent in merge context, we have to start to be a bit more explicit about what we compute the status against.
Tue, 13 May 2014 17:28:19 -0700 revert: group related data in tuple in the dispatch table
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Tue, 13 May 2014 17:28:19 -0700] rev 21577
revert: group related data in tuple in the dispatch table The dispatch table used to be: - action if in target manifest - action if not in target manifest - make backup if in target manifest - make backup if not in target manifest We turn this into two (action, make backup) tuples. This helps both readability of the dispatch table and handling of each case. This also prepares a refactoring where the different actions we performs, whether "file is in target manifest" or not, are determined before reaching this loop.
Tue, 13 May 2014 16:42:31 -0700 revert: group action into a single dictionary
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Tue, 13 May 2014 16:42:31 -0700] rev 21576
revert: group action into a single dictionary We had 4 different variables to hold the list of the 4 possibles actions. I'm grouping them in a single dictionary for a few reasons. First, it makes it clearer they are all related and meant to be the final actions performed by revert. Second this simplifies the parameter of the _performrevert function. Finally the two elements in each entry (list and message) have a different consumers in different functions, this change will make it easier to split them in a later commit.
Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:42 -0700 revert: add some inline comments
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:42 -0700] rev 21575
revert: add some inline comments I spend some time understanding how this part of the revert code is working. I'm adding some comments to help the code readability. I expect most of them to disappear in a coming refactoring. But the refactoring should be easier to follow with the comment.
Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:20 -0700 revert: cosmetic align of the dispatch table
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Tue, 13 May 2014 16:29:20 -0700] rev 21574
revert: cosmetic align of the dispatch table This changeset make a minimal cosmetic change to help readability of the value in this table.
Tue, 13 May 2014 17:28:19 -0700 revert: add a test case to reverting "add" during merges
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Tue, 13 May 2014 17:28:19 -0700] rev 21573
revert: add a test case to reverting "add" during merges This kind of revert is specifically trickier since the file is reported as "modified" by status. This case was only tested by some largefiles test. We introduce proper testing of all aspects of this case in the revert tests themselves.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip