Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:47:14 +0200] rev 2652
topic: use the 'topic' revset in namespace
This revset performance just got improved.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:41:01 +0200] rev 2651
topic-revset: update the revset to no longer build changectx
Atribute access is expensive, and changectx are very expensive to build, so we
skip these for better performance.
Before:
! wall 0.012195 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (best of 217)
After:
! wall 0.008816 comb 0.010000 user 0.010000 sys 0.000000 (best of 303)
(Before this changeset parent)
! wall 0.213261 comb 0.210000 user 0.210000 sys 0.000000 (best of 45)
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:46:30 +0200] rev 2650
topic-revset: changectx creation in the revset
The current mutability filter is very expensive, we use a more direct and
efficent way to do so:
Before:
! wall 0.213261 comb 0.210000 user 0.210000 sys 0.000000 (best of 45)
After:
! wall 0.012195 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (best of 217)
Pulkit Goyal <7895pulkit@gmail.com> [Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:32:11 +0530] rev 2649
topics: add some noise to rewrittent changeset to prevent hash cycle
If we have a changeset with topic `x`, we change it's topic to `y`, fine.
When we change it's topic back again to `x`, we get the hash of the the
obsoleted changeset which had the topic `x` initially. The same happens for few
more cases like clearing the topic of a changeset which initially had no topic.
This approach is influenced from cmdutil.amend and other commands (rebase, histedit, etc…)
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:18:47 +0200] rev 2648
topic-change: update the working copy along when changing topic of '.'
This avoids leaving the working copy behind, removing another large parts of
issue5441.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:21:08 +0200] rev 2647
topic-change: cleanup the locking and transaction mechanism
The previous code did not garanted we would release all lock (and was a bit more
complicated than needed.