Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:31:45 +0530] rev 5234
evolve: update the pre-check message for risk of orphans
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:32:34 +0530] rev 5233
evolve: add pre-check logic for creation of phase divergence locally
Changes in tests reflect the added behaviour.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Sun, 10 Nov 2019 18:08:57 +0530] rev 5232
evolve: add test to show that user can create phase-divergence locally
After resolution of phase-divergence, user can locally create phase-divergence
by rewriting the old bumped (obsolete now) changeset.
Next patch will be adding the pre-check logic for creation of this
phase-divergence.
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:18:55 +0530] rev 5231
evolve: remove a check which is already done by rewriteutil.precheck()
We have tests to check if fold is being performed on public cset.
There is no changes in test files because testing that never touched
the part this patch removes, and already caught in rewriteutil.precheck()
Sushil khanchi <sushilkhanchi97@gmail.com> [Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:30:50 +0530] rev 5230
evolve: add pre-check logic for content-divergence in rewriteutil.precheck()
For now, pre-check will abort if rewriting a rev create divergence (and
config experimental.evolution.allowdivergence is not set to True).
But this behaviour can be improved where instead of abort maybe we
can confirm the user to either proceed with divergence or some other
options depends on what command user is running.
Changes in test file are used to overrides the pre-check for testing
purpose (using experimental.evolution.allowdivergence=yes).
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com> [Thu, 26 Dec 2019 10:21:31 -0800] rev 5229
topic: make in-memory rebase preserve topic
The override code thought that `__init__` would return the runtime
instance, but it's actually the first argument to the function (the
`self` argument), so the code had no effect at all before this
patch.
I think the bug only affected in-memory rebase because the
in-working-copy rebase used the current topic, which was set correctly
since 5156a67f66a6 (topics: update current topic to the topic of newly
rebased commit (issue5551), 2017-06-29).