Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Thu, 04 Jul 2019 16:55:57 +0200] rev 4706
branching: merge with stable
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:11:25 +0530] rev 4705
evolve: use right value for branch name when finding branch heads
subbranch already formatted as "branchname:topicname", again appending it
with ":topicname" doesn't not make sense.
It's a little bit surprising that no tests fails though.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:54:22 +0530] rev 4704
evolve: fix confusion in branch heads checking logic when topic in play
To provide some context, when topics are in play the branchmap cache
we store contains the branch info of a rev as "branch:topic" format IIUC.
Assuming that is right, now in present code we don't actually cover
this part that "when looking for branch heads where we also have active
topic we should look for branch='branch_name:topic' instead".
And we get wrong branch heads as a result.
This patch make sure that we pass right candidate to find branch heads
using branchmap.branchheads() by overriding the localrepo.branchheads()
Changes in test file reflect the fixed behavior.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:55:46 +0530] rev 4703
topic: add tests to demonstrate topic confuses the branchhead checking logic
While topics are in play, we store the branchheads (which has a topic)
in "branchname:topicname" format. After digging into it I found that
even in the case when we should have branch heads for "bname:tname"
we get heads for "bname".
The tests output reflect the confusion in branch head checking logic.
Next patch will be fixing the problem.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Mon, 01 Jul 2019 19:15:57 +0530] rev 4702
evolve: fix the inconsistent behaviour of prune (issue6137)
Let's not update to any revision when working directory parent
is not related to the revision being pruned.
Changes in test file demonstrate the fixed behaviour.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Tue, 02 Jul 2019 21:00:46 +0530] rev 4701
prune: add tests to demonstrate issue6137
Here we can see that prune updates off to the parent revision
even when the pruned revision wasn't related with the working
directory parent.
A follow-up patch will fix this.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 30 Jun 2019 23:50:57 +0530] rev 4700
compat: fix `setupevolveunfinished` for upstream
Anton Shestakov <av6@dwimlabs.net> [Sat, 29 Jun 2019 18:21:57 +0800] rev 4699
prune: update to the successor of wdir also with --pair/--biject (issue6142)
When prune is used with --pair flag, we can also update to the successor of
working directory parent.
No need to check len(sucs) or len(precs) here because there's a check for that
earlier in the code (it's a requirement of biject).
The tests are now demonstrate the correct behavior: when rev 14 was pruned with
12 as its successor, the bookmark that was on 14 was moved to 12. That bookmark
was also activated (even before this patch).
Anton Shestakov <av6@dwimlabs.net> [Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:37:21 +0800] rev 4698
tests: demonstrate prune --pair not moving bookmark correctly
After `mkcommit n2` line the bookmark is on the correct changeset, but when we
prune --pair the two newly created changesets (revs 13 and 14), the bookmark
gets moved to their ancestor (rev 0). Instead, it should've moved to the last
of their successors (rev 12).
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@octobus.net> [Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:17:42 +0200] rev 4697
oops: backed out changeset 7ac40b4ea24c
Anton requested some changes on it.