Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Dec 15, 2020
  2. Dec 12, 2020
  3. Dec 14, 2020
    • Pierre-Yves David's avatar
      copies: rearrange all value comparison conditional · c692384b
      Pierre-Yves David authored
      To properly handle the newly tested case (chaining of merges) we will need to
      detect more accurately when an actualy merging of the copy information (and
      superseed the two existing data). Before starting to do so, we need to
      reorganise the values comparison to introduce different conditional branches
      when such actual merging is needed/detected.
      
      To avoid mixing too many change in this complicated code, we do the
      reorganisation before adding the "overwrite detection" logic in the next
      changesets.
      
      Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9612
      c692384b
  4. Feb 22, 2021
  5. Feb 19, 2021
  6. Feb 22, 2021
  7. Feb 19, 2021
  8. Feb 17, 2021
  9. Dec 14, 2020
  10. Feb 16, 2021
  11. Feb 18, 2021
  12. Feb 16, 2021
  13. Feb 22, 2021
    • Pierre-Yves David's avatar
      test-copies: don't use empty file for "same content" cases · d4688511
      Pierre-Yves David authored
      For main case (using filelog  or sidedata), this lead to the following hash
      change.
      
      Changesets:
      
      - 01c2f5eabdc4ce2bdee42b5f86311955e6c8f573 → 319179230cc87769ab3a861ebffe7a534ebb3d85
      - 01c2f5eabdc4 → 319179230cc8
      - c72365ee036fca4fb27fd745459bfb6ea1ac6993 → 6cbc9c2b7b391dd738603173717c601648d3735f
      - c72365ee036f → 6cbc9c2b7b39
      
      File revision for `f`:
      
      - 0dd616bc7ab1a111921d95d76f69cda5c2ac539c → cedeacc5bf5d9b9be4d7f8394d33a5349bb29c6e
      - 0dd616bc7ab1 → cedeacc5bf5d
      - eb806e34ef6be4c264effd5933d31004ad15a793 → ffb76cd765422a18759a335d8a81fa2bd455be6b
      - eb806e34ef6b → ffb76cd76542
      - 6da5a2eecb9c833f830b67a4972366d49a9a142c → 08d1ff5926fbd0285cdeb044cbe8ab651687e86a
      - 6da5a2eecb9c → 08d1ff5926fb
      
      File revision for `d`:
      
      - 7bded9d9da1f7bf9bf7cbfb24fe1e6ccf68ec440 → ba177bbb45ea930ee48469a55d40224537bd57a9
      
      For the "extra in changeset" case we get the following change for file `d`:
      
      - 68d5bca9df0577b6bc2ea30ca724e13ead60da81 → b894de5c94aadcb4894ea7c358389819c27fbcce
      - 68d5bca9df05 → b894de5c94aa
      - b80de5d138758541c5f05265ad144ab9fa86d1db → 56647659eff080e06e45c18ea9e848836dadea71
      - b80de5d13875 → 56647659eff0
      d4688511
  14. Dec 10, 2020
    • Pierre-Yves David's avatar
      test-copies: reinstall initial identical (empty) files for chained copied · 018d622e
      Pierre-Yves David authored
      This effectively back out changeset deeb215be337. Changeset deeb215be337 does not
      really include a justification for its change and make mes uncomfortable. I have
      been thinking about it and they are two options:
      
      - either having empty/full files does not make a difference, and deeb215be337 is
        a gratuitous changes.
      
      - either having empty/full files do make a difference and deeb215be337 silently
        change the test coverage. In such situation if we want the "not empty" case to
        be tested, we should add new cases to cover them
      
      In practice, we know that the "file content did not change, but merge still need
      to create a new filenode" case exists (for example if merging result in similar
      content but both parent of the file need to be recorded), and that such case are
      easy to miss/mess-up in the tests. Having all the file using the same (empty)
      content was done on purpose to increase the coverage of such corner case.
      
      As a result I am reinstalling the previous test situation. To
      increase the coverage of some case involving content-merge in
      test-copies-chain-merge.t, we will add a new, dedicated, cases later in this
      series, once various cleanup and test improvement have been set in place.
      
      This changeset starts with reinstalling the previous situation as (1) it is more
      fragile, so I am more confided getting it back in the initial situation, (2) I
      have specific test further down the line that are base on these one.
      
      The next changeset will slightly alter the test to use non-empty files for these
      tests (with identical content). It should help to make the initial intent "merge file with identical
      content" clearer. I am still using a two steps (backout, then change content)
      approach to facilitate careful validation of the output change.
      
      Doing so has a large impact on the output of the "copy info in changeset extra" variant
      added in 5e72827dae1e (2 changesets after deeb215be337). It seems to highlight
      various breakage when merge without content change are involved, this is a good
      example of why we want to explicitly test theses cases. Because the different
      -do- matters a lot.
      
      Fixing the "copy info in changeset extra" is not a priority here. Because (1)
      this changeset does not break anything, it only highlight that they were always
      broken. (2) the only people using "copy info in changeset extra" do not have
      merge.
      
      Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9587
      018d622e
  15. Feb 10, 2021
  16. Feb 15, 2021
  17. Feb 23, 2021
  18. Feb 11, 2021
    • Kyle Lippincott's avatar
      packaging: add Provides: python3-mercurial and Homepage to debian package · c82d6363
      Kyle Lippincott authored
      There are other packages that depend on python3-mercurial, like debian's
      mercurial-git, so we should mark ourselves as providing it.
      
      I compared the control file we generate to the one that the debian maintainers
      generate, and noticed several differences:
      - the Homepage bit. I included this, because why not
      - a more robust Suggests list that includes a graphical merge tool
      - a more robust Breaks list
      - debian's Recommends openssh-client, we only Recommends ca-certificates
      - a split into `mercurial` and `mercurial-common` (and possibly others?)
      - a slightly different description
      
      Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9983
      c82d6363
  19. Feb 12, 2021
Loading