Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:33:59 +0200 merge with default stable
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:33:59 +0200] rev 2259
merge with default We are getting close to cutting a 6.0.0
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:50:50 +0200 readme: mention the fix for issue4354
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:50:50 +0200] rev 2258
readme: mention the fix for issue4354
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:02:39 +0200 checkheads: add a small debug message in case were we give up fast
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:02:39 +0200] rev 2257
checkheads: add a small debug message in case were we give up fast When node is unknown we assume it will stay. Yet, we might have markers to it that are going to be pushed. However, we do not have branch (ancestors) information unless we are very lucky an all of them are pruned. So for now we do not do anything assuming this will be rare. We still add a small debug message to help detecting such situation in the future.
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:46:51 +0200 checkheahds: switch algorithm to use pushed markers instead
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:46:51 +0200] rev 2256
checkheahds: switch algorithm to use pushed markers instead We now checks if markers involved in the push are relevant to nodes in the branch we try to replace. The approach is simpler and more robust. A test showing the limitation of the previous approach is added.
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:47:14 +0200 checkheads: add test where the rewrite of the other branch is not direct
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:47:14 +0200] rev 2255
checkheads: add test where the rewrite of the other branch is not direct This will help testing that our logic is properly transitive.
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:45:26 +0200 check-heads: add tests about old heads indirectly pruned
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:45:26 +0200] rev 2254
check-heads: add tests about old heads indirectly pruned
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:50:33 +0200 checkheads: add more complexe case where a branch is split on multiple ones
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:50:33 +0200] rev 2253
checkheads: add more complexe case where a branch is split on multiple ones We extend case A-6 and A-7 with partial counterpart. These case are interesting because some of the partial pushing will (rightfully) works and some other won't.
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0200 checkheads: add a test of partially pushing a branch spread on multiple other
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0200] rev 2252
checkheads: add a test of partially pushing a branch spread on multiple other If a branch is fully obsolete but is result are spread on multiple branch, pushing only one of them should detect we create new branches.
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:42:28 +0200 checkheads-tests: add missing parents recording for prune markers
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:42:28 +0200] rev 2251
checkheads-tests: add missing parents recording for prune markers It is a bit too easy to forget about theses :/ If they are missing, the markers are not going to be exchanged on push.
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:02:46 +0200 checkheads: add some extra tests about "partial push"
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> [Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:02:46 +0200] rev 2250
checkheads: add some extra tests about "partial push" This adds a couple of test that checks that the head replacement code is properly ignored replacement not relevant to the push.
(0) -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip