[PATCH] bundle2: don't assume ordering of heads checked after push

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 06/01/2016 09:44 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 09:41 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Mads Kiilerich <madski at unity3d.com>
>> # Date 1464810052 -7200
>> #      Wed Jun 01 21:40:52 2016 +0200
>> # Branch stable
>> # Node ID 8e8f644bb2b3ff59af75d28056fd88481aca7a01
>> # Parent  a9764ab80e11bcf6a37255db7dd079011f767c6c
>> bundle2: don't assume ordering of heads checked after push
> 
> I forgot the [stable] tag.
> 
>> Usually, the heads will have the same ordering in handlecheckheads.
>> Insisting
>> on the same ordering is however an unnecessary constraint that in some
>> custom
>> cases can cause pushes to fail even though the actual heads didn't
>> change. This
>> caused production issues for us in combination with the current
>> version of
>> https://bitbucket.org/Unity-Technologies/hgwebcachingproxy/ .
>>
>> diff --git a/mercurial/bundle2.py b/mercurial/bundle2.py
>> --- a/mercurial/bundle2.py
>> +++ b/mercurial/bundle2.py
>> @@ -1453,7 +1453,7 @@ def handlecheckheads(op, inpart):
>>       # Trigger a transaction so that we are guaranteed to have the
>> lock now.
>>       if op.ui.configbool('experimental', 'bundle2lazylocking'):
>>           op.gettransaction()
>> -    if heads != op.repo.heads():
>> +    if sorted(heads) != sorted(op.repo.heads()):
> 
> This could use set() instead of sorted() - I don't know which should be
> preferred.

I slightly suspect set to be better, sorted will create a new object
anyway and the comparison for set might be better? But this is a wild
guess on my side.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David