- Nov 24, 2017
-
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
The tests were failing on some minor output changes. It looks like this is output change on the git side. We match the two variants in the tests.
-
- Feb 27, 2015
-
-
Siddharth Agarwal authored
Consider a Mercurial commit with hash 'h1'. Originally, if the only Mercurial field stored is the branch info (which is stored in the commit message rather than as an extra field), we'd store the rename source explicitly as a Git extra field -- let's call the original exported hash 'g1'. In Git, some operations throw all extra fields away. (One such example is a rebase.) If such an operation happens, we'll be left with a frankencommit with the branch info but without the rename source. Let's call this hash 'g2'. For a setup where Git is the source of truth, let's say that this 'g2' frankencommit is what gets pushed to the server. When 'g2' is subsequently imported into Mercurial, we'd look at the fact that it contains a Mercurial field in the commit message and believe that it was a legacy commit from the olden days when all info was stored in the commit message. In that case, in an attempt to preserve the hash, we wouldn't store any extra rename source info, resulting in 'h1'. Then, when the commit is re-exported to Git, we'd add the rename source again and produce 'g1' -- and thus break bidirectionality. Prevent this situation by not storing the rename source if we're adding branch info to the commit message. Then for 'h1' we export as 'g2' directly and never produce 'g1'. What happens if we not only need to store branch info but also other extra info, like renames? For 'h1' we'd produce 'g1', then it'd be rewritten on the Git side to 'g2' throwing away all that extra information. 'g2' being subsequently imported into Mercurial would produce a new hash, say 'h2'. That's fine because the commit did get rewritten in Git. We unfortunately wouldn't perform rename detection thinking that the commit is from Mercurial and had no renames recorded there, but when the commit is re-exported to Git we'd export it to 'g2' again. This at least preserves bidirectionality.
-
- Dec 02, 2014
-
-
Siddharth Agarwal authored
See inline comments for why the additional metadata needs to be stored. This literally breaks all the hashes because of the additional metadata. The changing of hashes is unfortunate but necessary to preserve bidirectionality. While this could be broken up into multiple commits, there was no way to do that while preserving bidirectionality. Following the principle that every intermediate commit must result in a correct state, I decided to combine the commits.
-
- Mar 25, 2014
-
-
durin42 authored
Tests pass on both my Mac and Linux machine, so I feel moderately confident that this is portable.
-
- Jul 01, 2013
-
-
André Felipe Dias authored
Test case based on the one proposed by David Carr at https://bitbucket.org/durin42/hg-git/issue/54/with-option-branch_bookmark_suffix-set
-