[PATCH 2 of 2] convert: execute merges in-memory (issue5076)

Tony Tung tonytung at instagram.com
Tue Feb 23 16:41:27 EST 2016


I don't think I saw your patch. Can you resend it?

Thanks,
Tony

On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz at google.com<mailto:martinvonz at google.com>> wrote:


Tony, if you apply the patch I sent that adds dirty checking to flat manifests, what failures do you see? Is it only covert that fails? I forgot and I'm on mobile now.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 13:13 Sean Farley <sean at farley.io<mailto:sean at farley.io>> wrote:

Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com<mailto:raf at durin42.com>> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:14:00AM -0800, Tony Tung wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Tony Tung <tonytung at merly.org<mailto:tonytung at merly.org>>
>> # Date 1456215137 28800
>> #      Tue Feb 23 00:12:17 2016 -0800
>> # Node ID b7f61d7438ba1aed06afa1a53a2b5fda8bdc225f
>> # Parent  cbc605f28b61cc469e21186982d0569bf94f7d2a
>> convert: execute merges in-memory (issue5076)
>
> I think this makes sense. Sean, you've done in-memory merge stuff,
> does this look sensible at least for convert to you?

My spider senses did go off with the subject line but I don't really see
what is changing here. There's a change in the method signature and a
check for it later but everything else with the merge machinery
(workingctx and its interaction with wwrite) remains untouched. Perhaps
the 'hg convert' code path takes a different route? I'm guessing Tony is
referring to merging the manifest (and not the other machinery I
mentioned)?

If so, then it seems this 'inmemoryonly' argument might be used (perhaps
by me) later for a first attempt of a pure in-memory merge.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20160223/b115ec76/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list