Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:23:25 -0700 builddependencies: share code between single- and multi-successor cases
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:23:25 -0700] rev 3905
builddependencies: share code between single- and multi-successor cases The two cases now have more similar structure ("if succ in revs: dependencies[r].add(succ)"), so let's share the code so it doesn't start drifting apart again.
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:33:48 -0700 builddependencies: build inverse dict from forward dict
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:33:48 -0700] rev 3904
builddependencies: build inverse dict from forward dict It's error-prone to keep "dependencies" and "rdependencies" in sync (we don't do it correctly when there are multiple successors or a node). It's easier to just create "rependencies" from "dependencies" after it's complete.
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:21:49 -0700 builddependencies: remove a use of defaultdict
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:21:49 -0700] rev 3903
builddependencies: remove a use of defaultdict I don't see much reason to make "rdependencies" be a defaultdict when "dependencies" is not. It's easy to initialize each entry ourselves.
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:03:35 +0200 branching: merge with stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:03:35 +0200] rev 3902
branching: merge with stable
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:30:37 -0700 builddependencies: don't remove found deps when divergence found (issue5946) stable
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:30:37 -0700] rev 3901
builddependencies: don't remove found deps when divergence found (issue5946) It seems obviously wrong to not keep any dependencies for a revision that we had already found (for p1) if we run into divergence (from p2). It also happens to fix issue5946 :)
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:47:16 -0700 builddependencies: don't add dependency on revision outside input set stable
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:47:16 -0700] rev 3900
builddependencies: don't add dependency on revision outside input set This was already handled in the single-successor case, but had been missed in the multiple-successors case. Note that there seems to be a copy of builddependencies() in the topics extension. I don't use topics more than I have to, so I'll let someone else fix that code.
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:16:25 -0700 builddependencies: consider all divergent successors stable
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:16:25 -0700] rev 3899
builddependencies: consider all divergent successors We were only considering one. In test-evolve-abort-conentdiv.t:165, the input revs were {5, 8} and dependency dict was {8: set([]), 5: set([10])}, which is a little weird (10 is not in the input set). It still worked because the callers used it (they seemed to only care if there were *any* dependencies). This patch fixes the issue by considering all successors. That means the dependency dict will be {8: set([]), 5: set([8, 10])} after this patch. The next patch will remove the 10 from that set.
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:00:49 -0700 tests: add test for issue5946 stable
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:00:49 -0700] rev 3898
tests: add test for issue5946 The test case is a copy of the one for 5833. The only difference is that the merge parents are recorded in the opposite order (and that the test is truncated because it fails).
Fri, 25 May 2018 17:17:56 +0200 obslog: check filtered output with folded changesets
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Fri, 25 May 2018 17:17:56 +0200] rev 3897
obslog: check filtered output with folded changesets
Fri, 25 May 2018 16:50:04 +0200 obslog: check filtered output with splitted changesets
Boris Feld <boris.feld@octobus.net> [Fri, 25 May 2018 16:50:04 +0200] rev 3896
obslog: check filtered output with splitted changesets
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 tip