Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:19:54 -0800] rev 33313
shelve: don't reimplement mergestate.unresolved()
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:37:12 -0800] rev 33312
summary: don't reimplment mergestate.unresolved()
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:26:33 -0800] rev 33311
mergestate: implement unresolvedcount() in terms of unresolved()
This simplifies the method slightly. It does create a full list of
paths while doing so, but it's not a lot of data anyway (besides, I
would think references to strings are no larger than (references to?)
True).
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:26:10 -0800] rev 33310
mergestate: make unresolved() use iteritems()
mergestate.unresolved() is a generator, so it seems better for it to
rely on iteritems() than items(), although it also seems unlikely for
it to make a noticeable difference.
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Fri, 30 Jun 2017 23:58:59 -0700] rev 33309
changegroup: don't fail on empty changegroup (API)
I don't know why applying an empty changegroup should be an error. It
seems harmless. I suspect the check was there to find code that
creates empty changegroups just because that would be wasteful. Let's
use develwarn() for that instead, so we catch any such cases that run
with our test runner, but we still allow others to generate empty
changegroups if they want to.
We have run into this check at Google once or twice and had to work
around it, but I'm changing this not so much because of that, but
because it seems like it shouldn't be an error.
I also changed the message slightly to be more modern ("changelog
group" -> "changegroup") and more generic ("received" -> "applied").
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Sat, 01 Jul 2017 00:00:09 -0700] rev 33308
changegroup: remove option to allow empty changegroup (API)
No caller sets the "emptyok" option, so let's remove it.
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Fri, 30 Jun 2017 23:58:31 -0700] rev 33307
strip: don't allow empty changegroup in bundle1
Applying an empty changegroup has been an error since the
beginning. The only exception was strip, which would allow to apply an
empty changegroup from the temporary bundle. However, the emptyok=True
option was only set for bundle1 bundles. In other words, temporary
bundle2 bundles would fail if they were empty.
Bundle2 has now been used enough that it seems safe to say that we
simply don't create bundle2 bundles with empty changegroups. That also
suggests that we never create bundle1 bundles with empty changegroups
(i.e. empty bundle1 bundles, since bundle1 is just a changegroup),
because, AFAICT, the code leading up to the application of the bundle
is the same for bundle1 and bundle2.
Therefore, let's stop passing emptyok=True, so we more clearly get the
same behavior for bundle1 and bundle2.