Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:13:06 +0100 test: highlight data handling when solving divergence stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:13:06 +0100] rev 4994
test: highlight data handling when solving divergence The current handling of date is lacking, we add test to highlight this.
Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:27:50 +0530 evolve: add tests for the case when resolution parent is ambiguous stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sat, 07 Dec 2019 03:27:50 +0530] rev 4993
evolve: add tests for the case when resolution parent is ambiguous
Fri, 06 Dec 2019 23:43:00 +0530 evolve: abort if deciding resolution parent is ambiguous stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Fri, 06 Dec 2019 23:43:00 +0530] rev 4992
evolve: abort if deciding resolution parent is ambiguous While solving content-divergence, it could be hard to decide which cset should be treated as a resolution parent if there are multiple successors of divergent cset. i.e split case. But we are planning to make some update in handling this split case: 1) consider highest one if all splitted csets are in a single topological branch 2) still need to decide if 1) doesn't apply
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:17:04 +0530 evolve: make sure divergence resolution doesn't undo changes (issue6203) stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:17:04 +0530] rev 4991
evolve: make sure divergence resolution doesn't undo changes (issue6203) Before this patch, in content-divergence resolution logic if resolution parent is not the parent of any of the two divergent changesets then it could undo some changes introduced by previous revs (while resolving stack of content-divergent changesets) as demonstrated by the test added in previous patch. To solve this, what this patch doing is: if divergent cset has obsolete parent with a successor then first resolve the "orphan" instability of divergent cset by relocating, then perform the content-divergence resolution. After this change in logic, I found that it's kind of more correct as reflected by the changes in tests/test-evolve-content-divergent-corner-cases.t where it prevented creating conflicts while merging. Changes in tests/test-evolve-content-divergent-stack.t demonstrate the fixed behaviour. Next patches will be covering the `evolve --continue` case for the relocation of "divergent" cset.
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 20:25:16 +0530 evolve: add test to demonstrate issue6203 stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sat, 23 Nov 2019 20:25:16 +0530] rev 4990
evolve: add test to demonstrate issue6203 Current logic of content-divergence resolution contains a bug that if resolution parent is not the parent of any of the two divergent changesets, it could undo some changes. I think a good solution for this is to first relocate the divergent cset to it's obsolete parent's successor if applicable and then perform the content-divergence resolution. Next patch will fix the issue.
Mon, 09 Dec 2019 16:01:56 +0700 state: there's no _unpack in struct stable
Anton Shestakov <av6@dwimlabs.net> [Mon, 09 Dec 2019 16:01:56 +0700] rev 4989
state: there's no _unpack in struct Caught by pytype.
Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:47:18 +0530 amend: abort if both --patch and --extract are used stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 29 Sep 2019 11:47:18 +0530] rev 4988
amend: abort if both --patch and --extract are used
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -7 +7 +10 +30 +100 +300 tip