merge with future 6.0.1 Nothing special to report

checkheads: update tests to match the one in core These test now exists in core, so we update the evolve version.

serveronly: fix reposetup The local 'reposetup' function was shadowing the extension helper one. We add a test for obshashrange using 'serveronly' since this is the item that made use discover the issue.

extension: simplify the extensions helper hierarchy If one mode depends on the other, its extensions helper is merged.

checkheads: do not overwrite code for Mercurial 4.2 and above The fix has been ported to Mercurial core as c6cb21ddf74a.

legacy: fix debugrecordpruneparents to call obsstore.create() with keywords It appears the API was changed twice in Mercurial at - 570f87422f54 "obsstore: add an explicit `date` argument to obsstore.create" - adb3798dce49 "obsstore: add a `parents` argument to obsstore.create" and metadata would be changed to a list of (key, value) pairs. Convert it back to a dict as expected by create().

template: adapt to new showlist() API introduced by hg e5eab0fe69ee

template: pass all mapping data to showlist() Otherwise a keyword depending on repo or ctx couldn't be rendered.

make: merge recipes for help

make: fix indent of ifeq-endif ifeq() can't be a recipe.

tests: update test to match upstreamable version Name have been clarified, documentation has been updated and some test-case have been updated to match the intended test.

tests: fix directory names in exchange-D4 test The test is based on another one and the directory name had not been updated.

tests: fix directory names in exchange-D3 test The test is based on another one and the directory name had not been updated.

merge back with default

Added tag 6.0.0 for changeset 165ad227993d

packaging: prepare version 6.0.0

merged with future 6.0 No output changed.

test-compat-hg-3.9: merge with future 6.0

merge with future 6.0.0

merge with default We are getting close to cutting a 6.0.0

readme: mention the fix for issue4354

checkheads: add a small debug message in case were we give up fast When node is unknown we assume it will stay. Yet, we might have markers to it that are going to be pushed. However, we do not have branch (ancestors) information unless we are very lucky an all of them are pruned. So for now we do not do anything assuming this will be rare. We still add a small debug message to help detecting such situation in the future.

checkheahds: switch algorithm to use pushed markers instead We now checks if markers involved in the push are relevant to nodes in the branch we try to replace. The approach is simpler and more robust. A test showing the limitation of the previous approach is added.

checkheads: add test where the rewrite of the other branch is not direct This will help testing that our logic is properly transitive.

check-heads: add tests about old heads indirectly pruned

checkheads: add more complexe case where a branch is split on multiple ones We extend case A-6 and A-7 with partial counterpart. These case are interesting because some of the partial pushing will (rightfully) works and some other won't.

checkheads: add a test of partially pushing a branch spread on multiple other If a branch is fully obsolete but is result are spread on multiple branch, pushing only one of them should detect we create new branches.

checkheads-tests: add missing parents recording for prune markers It is a bit too easy to forget about theses :/ If they are missing, the markers are not going to be exchanged on push.

checkheads: add some extra tests about "partial push" This adds a couple of test that checks that the head replacement code is properly ignored replacement not relevant to the push.

checkheads: handle partial obsolescence We now properly detects situations were only parts of the remote branch is obsoleted. To do so, we process children in the branch recursively to see if they will be obsolete. The current code has some trouble when the remote branch in unknown locally, or when the prune happened on a successors that is not relevant to the push. These case will be handled later. The processing code is becoming more and more complex, a lighter approach would be to check for the obsolescence markers that are relevant to the pushed set, but I prefer to stick with the current approach until more test cases are written.