- Oct 15, 2015
-
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
One of the main goal of having consolidated destination function is to allow extension to play with this logic. We extract sub logic to make is wrapping more practical.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
One of the main goal of having consolidated destination function is to allow extension to play with this logic. We extract sub logic to make is wrapping more practical.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
This block was overwriting any result from the previous block anyway. So we move it first to prove it is possible and we'll extract it in its own function in the next patch.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
We'll move the obsolete related logic first (as it is overwriting any other anyway) to make the next patch clearer we add indentation in this one.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
One of the main goal of having consolidated destination function is to allow extension to play with this logic. We extract sub logic to make is wrapping more practical.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
We make the name consistent with the other similar revsets and make sure it has minimal tests.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
There is little value in using the revset instead of the function.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
This makes it much simple to wrap for other extension.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
We make the name consistent with the one used by '_destupdate' and we ensure the code is run by testing it (abort is expected and merge would).
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
There is no real value in using the revset over the function. The revset have no remaining users and will be taken care of in a later changesets.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
Function in destutil are much simpler to wrap and more flexible than revset. This also help consistency as 'destupdate' live here and cannot become a pure revset anyway.
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
The revset is not ready for prime time yet. However it is useful to have some version of it exposed to help candidate users to play with it and provide feedback on what we should aim at. We add a small test to make sure the code runs.
-
- Oct 14, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
The upcoming cg3 will need different logic for unpacking manifests.
-
- Oct 01, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
A future change will introduce a new function on a cg3packer that can pack treemanifests as well as flatmanifests.
-
- Sep 30, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
Since I'm spending the time to understand this code, I may as well leave it clearer than I found it.
-
- Sep 29, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
I'm about to add a cg3, and it seems prudent to annotate what formats support what features. It strikes me that we may want to consider moving to a more feature-oriented model in the future, but we'll see how that looks in a little while I guess.
-
- Oct 14, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
This should help future readers at least a little.
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
I'm not sure what to do abstraction-wise here. It might be more sensible to make a memoryrepo that could apply a bundle in-memory and then we could make the changegroup data be strictly an applyable stream, but that's an idea for Later.
-
Augie Fackler authored
The new convention is that bundles contain changegroups. bundle1 happens to *only* be a changegroup, but bundle2 is a more featureful container that isn't something you can pass to addgroup().
-
- Oct 13, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
I'm trying to reason about the public surface area of this module now, so it's worth tagging private things as such.
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
This is in localpeer, so it lives. Had it been in localrepo instead, I would have tried to exterminate it.
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
Augie Fackler authored
I'll clean up callers in subsequent patches, then remove the forwarding.
-
Augie Fackler authored
This is preparation for some refactoring.
-
- Oct 15, 2015
-
-
Augie Fackler authored
-
- Oct 13, 2015
-
-
Siddharth Agarwal authored
For easier catching.
-
- Oct 14, 2015
-
-
Gregory Szorc authored
Server operators that have enabled clone bundles probably want clients to use it. This patch introduces a feature that will insert a bundle2 "output" part that advertises the existence of the clone bundles feature to clients that aren't using it. The server uses the "cbattempted" argument to "getbundle" to determine whether a client supports clone bundles and to avoid sending the message to clients that failed the clone bundle for whatever reason.
-
Gregory Szorc authored
The client now sends a "cbattempted" boolean flag to the "getbundle" wire protocol command to tell the server whether a clone bundle was attempted. The presence of this flag will enable the server to conditionally emit a bundle2 "output" part advertising the availability of clone bundles to compatible clients that don't have it enabled.
-
- Oct 13, 2015
-
-
Gregory Szorc authored
This is needed so a subsequent patch can conditionally add a bundle2 part to the "getbundle" wire protocol command depending on whether a clone bundle was attempted.
-
Gregory Szorc authored
If a clone bundle persistently fails to apply, users need a way to disable it so they have a hope of the clone working. Change the hint for the abort scenario to advertise the config option to disable clone bundles.
-
- Oct 14, 2015
-
-
Gregory Szorc authored
-
Gregory Szorc authored
The client represents boolean arguments as '0' and '1'. bool('0') == bool('1') == True, so a simple bool(val) isn't sufficient for converting the argument back to a bool type. Currently, "obsmarkers" is the only boolean argument to getbundle. I /think/ the only place where we currently set the "obsmarkers" argument is during bundle2 pulls. As a result of this bug, the server /might/ be sending obsolete markers bundle2 part(s) to clients that don't request them. That is why I marked this BC. Surprisingly there was no test fall out from this change. I suspect a lapse in test coverage.
-
- Oct 15, 2015
-
-
Pierre-Yves David authored
We would skip the part if it was fully unknown, so we should also skip it if we know we won't be able to apply it. This will allow us to produce bundles with obsolescence markers alongside changegroup while still being able to apply them on any client.
-