Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:46:43 +0200] rev 17875
subrepo: more isolation, only use ui for hg.peer when there is no repo
ui contains repo specific configuration, so do not use it when there is a repo.
But pass it to hg.peer when there is no repo. Then it only contains global
configuration.
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Sat, 28 Jul 2012 23:28:36 +0200] rev 17874
peer: subrepo isolation, pass repo instead of repo.ui to hg.peer
Do not pass ui because it contains the configuration of the repo. It is the
same object as repo.ui.
When a repo is passed to hg.peer, the global configuration is read from
repo.baseui.
FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy@lares.dti.ne.jp> [Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:11:24 +0900] rev 17873
subrepo: isolate configuration between each repositories in subrepo tree
Before this patch, repository local configurations are not isolated
between repositories in subrepo tree, because "localrepository"
objects for each subrepositories are created with "ui" instance of the
parent of each ones.
So, local configuration of the parent or higher repositories are
visible also in children or lower ones.
This patch uses "baseui" instead of "ui" to create repository object:
the former contains only global configuration.
This patch also copies 'ui.commitsubrepos' configuration to commit
recursively in subrepo tree, because it may be set in not
"repo.baseui" but "repo.ui".
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> [Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:39:47 -0500] rev 17872
bookmarks: backed out new message from changeset
52c7e171e355
Not strictly a bugfix, hasn't achieved consensus yet.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:53:31 +0200] rev 17871
clone: print bookmark name when clone activates a bookmark
Similar to the message that prints the checked out branch name.
Without this, the user might accidentally move the @ bookmark.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:37:03 +0200] rev 17870
clone: activate @ bookmark if updating to it
The message "updating bookmark @ failed!" in test-bookmarks-pushpull.t
is correct, because the changeset that the @ bookmark points to is not
pushed to the target repository.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:20:44 +0200] rev 17869
test-clone.t: check that branch "@" is not automatically checked out
This verifies that
c9339efed653 fixes the second problem mentioned in
issue3677.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:09:55 +0200] rev 17868
test-bookmarks.t: check that bookmark "default" is not automatically checked out
This verifies that
c9339efed653 fixes the problem originally reported in
issue3677.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:36:15 +0200] rev 17867
clone: make sure to use "@" as bookmark and "default" as branch (
issue3677)
Before this change a bookmark named "default" or a branch named "@" would
cause the wrong changeset to be checked out.
The change in output of test-hardlinks.t is due to the fact that no unneeded
tag lookups for the tags "@" or "default" happen, therefore the cache file is
not created.
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> [Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:29:50 +0200] rev 17866
bookmark: simplify nodemap check introduced in the previous changeset
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@logilab.fr> [Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:43:52 +0200] rev 17865
bookmark: prevent crashing when a successor is unknown locally (
issue3680)
The `%ln` revset substitution does not accept unknown node. We prune unknown
node from potential successors before computing descendants.
This have no impact on the result of this function.
- Descendants of unknown changeset as unknown,
- all successors of unknown changesets are already return by the call who
returned those same unknown changesets,
- unknown changesets are never a valid destination for a bookmark.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@logilab.fr> [Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:36:03 +0200] rev 17864
bookmark: complexity pull-push test to have deeper tree
This changeset only touch test.
The previous test was correct, it tested that the successors of an old bookmark
position was seen as a valid destination for bookmark.
However, a newer version is made for two reason:
(1) The new test check further. It check that the descendant of the successors
is a valid destination
(2) An ever more complexe test is needed to validate a future fix to issue 3680
Splitting complexification of the test and actual bugfix help to reduce the
noise in the bugfix changeset. Issue 3680 is NOT fixed by this changeset.