[PATCH 04 of 14 "] pull: deal with locally filtered changeset passed into --rev
7895pulkit at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 08:42:38 EDT 2019
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:37 PM Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> On 4/16/19 12:56 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:54 AM Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com
> > <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 5:56 PM Pierre-Yves David
> > <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
> > <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>> wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at octobus.net
> > <mailto:pierre-yves.david at octobus.net>>
> > # Date 1554472565 -7200
> > # Fri Apr 05 15:56:05 2019 +0200
> > # Node ID 0adcfded9b03fff84190594ef29e37110967419f
> > # Parent d5f42ea7b06825ee86620cdc18aaa3a53504bff5
> > # EXP-Topic hgweb-obsolete
> > # Available At https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
> > # hg pull
> > https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ -r 0adcfded9b03
> > pull: deal with locally filtered changeset passed into --rev
> > Nowadays, it is possible to explicitly pull a remote revision
> > that end up being
> > hidden locally (eg: obsoleted locally). However before this
> > patch, some
> > internal processing where crashing trying to resolve a filtered
> > revision.
> > Without this patches, the pull output result a confusing output:
> > $ hg pull ../repo-Bob --rev 956063ac4557
> > pulling from ../repo-Bob
> > searching for changes
> > adding changesets
> > adding manifests
> > adding file changes
> > added 2 changesets with 0 changes to 2 files (+1 heads)
> > (2 other changesets obsolete on arrival)
> > abort:
> > 00changelog.i at 956063ac4557828781733b2d5677a351ce856f59: filtered
> > node!
> > The existing abort message is bad and should be improved because
> > typical users won't have a clue what it means.
> > But I have reservations about this patch because it isn't clear what
> > will happen with `pull -u -r <hidden>`. If the working directory
> > will be updated to a hidden revision without --hidden specified,
> > this feels wrong to me.
> > Oh - maybe part 5 (and later?) address my concerns?
> It does. Regarding the abort message. I know we have a better message
> available for this kind of error. I am not sure why that better message
> is not used here and I intend to dig into that next cycle (there are a
> couple of usual suspect: wrong exception types, bits still in evolve
> extension, etc…)
> > Could we get test coverage showing what happens in this case? Please
> > also check for behavior with `hg clone -r <hidden>` and `hg clone -u
> > <rev>` as well.
> (as you already noticed, this is addressed in the next patch).
Queued 4 and 5. Many thanks!
> > Also, I'm a little confused about "checkout" and "brev" both doing
> > similar things. It seems that "checkout" is used internally and
> > "brev" is used for user-facing output. I wish this code were better
> > documented. But that is scope bloat...
I also tried to understand and was not successful. Maybe hg.addbranchrevs()
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel