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.
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.
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.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:03:35 +0200] rev 3902
branching: merge with 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 :)
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.
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.