Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:23:22 +0200 phases: improve performance of _retractboundary
Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> [Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:23:22 +0200] rev 44988
phases: improve performance of _retractboundary The old version repeatedly converts nodes to revisions, which is a moderately expensive operation. Mapping all new changes once to revisions and back at the end reduces the time spend in _retractboundary during the unbundling of NetBSD's src from 67s to 17s. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8641
Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:54:39 +0530 tests: use proctutil.stdout.write() instead of print() in test-extension.t
Pulkit Goyal <7895pulkit@gmail.com> [Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:54:39 +0530] rev 44987
tests: use proctutil.stdout.write() instead of print() in test-extension.t I was debugging this test failure on python3 + chg. I get the following hunk as test failure: ``` @@ -206,6 +206,18 @@ Check normal command's load order of ext 4) bar uipopulate 5) foo reposetup 5) bar reposetup + 4) foo uipopulate (chg !) + 4) bar uipopulate (chg !) + 4) foo uipopulate (chg !) + 4) bar uipopulate (chg !) + 4) foo uipopulate (chg !) + 4) bar uipopulate (chg !) + 4) foo uipopulate (chg !) + 4) bar uipopulate (chg !) + 4) foo uipopulate (chg !) + 4) bar uipopulate (chg !) + 5) foo reposetup (chg !) + 5) bar reposetup (chg !) 0:c24b9ac61126 ``` After hours of debugging and head scracthing, I figured out that something is wrong with output flushing. I initially switched the print() statements to ui.warn() but thanks to Yuya who suggested using procutil.stdout.write() instead.
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 11:33:41 -0500 fuzz: tell manifest fuzzer about longer node hashes
Augie Fackler <augie@google.com> [Wed, 08 Jan 2020 11:33:41 -0500] rev 44986
fuzz: tell manifest fuzzer about longer node hashes Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8374
Mon, 01 Jun 2020 20:57:14 +0200 absorb: preserve changesets which were already empty
Manuel Jacob <me@manueljacob.de> [Mon, 01 Jun 2020 20:57:14 +0200] rev 44985
absorb: preserve changesets which were already empty Most commands in Mercurial (commit, rebase, absorb itself) don’t create empty changesets or drop them if they become empty. If there’s a changeset that’s empty, it must be a deliberate choice of the user. At least it shouldn’t be absorb’s responsibility to prune them. The fact that changesets that became empty during absorb are pruned, is unaffected by this. This case was found while writing patches which make it possible to configure absorb and rebase to not drop empty changesets. Even without having such config set, I think it’s valuable to preserve changesets which were already empty.
Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:07:33 +0200 absorb: preserve branch-closing changesets even if empty
Manuel Jacob <me@manueljacob.de> [Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:07:33 +0200] rev 44984
absorb: preserve branch-closing changesets even if empty This makes the behavior consistent with 'hg commit', which allows to create otherwise empty changesets if they close the branch. A lost branch closure can inadvertently re-open a branch, so it should be preserved.
Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:33:00 +0200 absorb: preserve branch-changing changesets even if empty
Manuel Jacob <me@manueljacob.de> [Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:33:00 +0200] rev 44983
absorb: preserve branch-changing changesets even if empty This makes the behavior consistent with 'hg commit', which allows to create otherwise empty changesets if the branch changes compared to the parent. A branch change can denote important information, so it should be preserved.
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -6 +6 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip