[PATCH 1 of 6] changegroup: expose list of changesets from getsubsetraw

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 05/26/2015 07:32 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 10:36:54PM -0700, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/25/2015 10:07 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Pierre-Yves David
>>> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 05/25/2015 09:53 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>>
>>>         On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Pierre-Yves David
>>>         <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
>>>         <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>
>>>         <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
>>>         <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>              On 05/25/2015 05:42 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>>
>>>                  # HG changeset patch
>>>                  # User Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>
>>>                  <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>>>
>>>                  # Date 1432589936 25200
>>>                  #      Mon May 25 14:38:56 2015 -0700
>>>                  # Node ID ea28b7239085bbc7d561ab6aa6f86bdc19f77a25
>>>                  # Parent  605b1d32c1c011d56233f28923ee5354fce7e426
>>>                  changegroup: expose list of changesets from getsubsetraw
>>>
>>>                  Currently, when generating changegroups, it is possible
>>>         for the
>>>                  caller
>>>                  to not know exactly what data is inside without parsing
>>>         the returned
>>>                  data stream. This is inefficient and adds complexity.
>>>
>>>                  Return the list of changesets from getsubsetraw to make
>>>         this data
>>>                  more widely available.
>>>
>>>
>>>              I'm confused. This very data is -provided- to the function.
>>>         It is in
>>>              `outgoing.missing`. Why would we need to return it?
>>>
>>>
>>>         Err, I may have gotten too carried away with looking at return
>>>         values
>>>         and a handful of functions that were named very similarly. I'll
>>>         send a v2.
>>>
>>>
>>>     What function remains that are not taking outgoing. In the bundle2
>>>     context I expect about all of them to be in the modern form and take
>>>     an outgoing object.
>>>
>>>     If it still make sense to modify some of them (And I'm not use it
>>>     does , since old function we mostly left in place for old caller)
>>>     you probably want to return the outgoing object that get computed
>>>     internally.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I'm looking at this again, I think I was somewhat justified.
>>> getchangegroup raw calculates the discovery.outgoing instance and passes
>>> it into getlocalchangegroupraw. It then gets passed into getsubsetraw,
>>> where .missing is passed into bundler.bundle(). I think it is a layering
>>> violation for getchangegroupraw (and its non-raw sibling) to assume
>>> getsubsetraw uses outgoing.missing for changegroup data. getsubsetraw is
>>> the thing passing a list of changesets into the bundle function, so I
>>> think getsubsetraw should return info about what is in the changegroup.
>>> As crazy as it sounds, we do have to change 6 functions to hook all this
>>> plumbing up in a consistent way.
>>
>> The "outgoing" object represent a set changesets we want in a bundle and
>> related "base" we can rely on. It feel like appropriate to pass it all along
>> the line.
>
> I'm expecting a v2 of this, right?

Yes.

This logic have been written by me under Matt supervision, so I'm 
expecting Greg to prove to me it is wrong if he wants to over-write it.

On the other and this is one of the very first refactoring I did in late 
2011 so I won't be surprise if it is wrong :)

-- 
Pierre-Yves David