[PATCH 1 of 2 STABLE] hooks: always include HG_PENDING

[Durham Goode]

On 11/4/15 5:11 PM, Durham Goode wrote:
>
>
> On 11/4/15 4:26 PM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
>> At Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:19:37 -0800,
>> Durham Goode wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
>>> # Date 1446598693 28800
>>> #      Tue Nov 03 16:58:13 2015 -0800
>>> # Branch stable
>>> # Node ID 0a772553285d61aeea3226f74698223b09fae7ac
>>> # Parent  58b7f3e93bbab749ab16c09df12aae5ba7880708
>>> hooks: always include HG_PENDING
>>>
>>> Previously we would only include HG_PENDING in the hook args if the
>>> transaction's writepending() actually wrote something. This is a bad 
>>> criteria,
>>> since it's possible that a previous call to writepending() wrote 
>>> stuff and the
>>> hooks want to still see that.
>>>
>>> The solution is to always have hooks execute within the scope of the 
>>> pending
>>> changes by always putting HG_PENDING in the environment.
Matt and foozy, on a related topic:

The change to unify the HG_PENDING stuff to hooks._exthook() also means 
that tr.writepending() is not called and HG_PENDING is not set for 
python hooks. This broke one of our python hooks which drives our other 
hooks.  Matt, I know the python hook api provides no guarantees, but 
this could break any other python hooks that shell out.  So just fyi at 
the very least.