[PATCH 6 of 8] upgrade: add an argument to control manifest upgrade
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Tue Aug 6 05:58:27 EDT 2019
On 8/6/19 4:44 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:04 AM Pierre-Yves David
> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at octobus.net
> <mailto:pierre-yves.david at octobus.net>>
> # Date 1564439752 -7200
> # Tue Jul 30 00:35:52 2019 +0200
> # Node ID 909da55a9517693f2911793272e03cb7f108cfaf
> # Parent 5b8a0d3b7596be28a31faac4ffc499da46c0b62e
> # EXP-Topic upgrade-select
> # Available At https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
> # hg pull
> https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ -r 909da55a9517
> upgrade: add an argument to control manifest upgrade
> Before we land this and the next commit, I'd like you to think about:
> 1) Filelog support. If we have a flag for manifests and changelogs,
> shouldn't there be one for files?
With the next changeset, we can select all filelog and no-filelog. We
could introduce a flag dedicated to filelog, that would match on the
filename. I did not had a usecase for it so I did not.
> 2) How the presence of multiple flags interacts. Assuming we add a flag
> to control files, what happens when you supply --manifest --changelog or
> --no-manifest --no-changelog? Does that behavior make sense?
Multiple flag combine to allow a finer selection, here is the extract
from the help (with the next changesets)
* `--manifest`: only optimize the manifest
* `--no-manifest`: optimize all revlog but the manifest
* `--changelog`: optimize the changelog only
* `--no-changelog --no-manifest`: optimize filelogs only
> 3) How do we extend this selection to other storage primitives? Do we
> need to keep adding arguments for each storage primitive type?
Multiple commands in mercurial use the --manifest/--changelog flag. So
we are not introducing any new questions with this series.
More information about the Mercurial-devel