Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:27:53 -0800 exchange: have a function doing all the common initial setup
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:27:53 -0800] rev 830
exchange: have a function doing all the common initial setup This will help creation of further test.
Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:12:50 -0800 exchance: add a common setup script for all test
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:12:50 -0800] rev 829
exchance: add a common setup script for all test
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:36:37 -0800 exchange: add test case for A.2
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:36:37 -0800] rev 828
exchange: add test case for A.2 Testcase defined here: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ObsolescenceMarkersExchange
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:21:22 -0800 exchange: add test case for A.1
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:21:22 -0800] rev 827
exchange: add test case for A.1 Testcase defined here: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ObsolescenceMarkersExchange
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:45:59 -0800 exchange: add the pullmarker wireproto command to simple4server
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:45:59 -0800] rev 826
exchange: add the pullmarker wireproto command to simple4server This will allow simple server side support. (yes, code duplication is bad I already told you I won't do it too much mom)
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:44:37 -0800 exchange: extract computation of pulled markers boundary in a function
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:44:37 -0800] rev 825
exchange: extract computation of pulled markers boundary in a function I expect massive experimentation on this specific aspect. so we better isolate it.
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:38:19 -0800 exchange: pull markers relevant to the pulled subset only
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:38:19 -0800] rev 824
exchange: pull markers relevant to the pulled subset only With the command recently introduced we can select to pull only markers relevant to some nodes. We are now pull all markers for all node in the relevant subset. We'll try to pull less (just markers for node where local and remote marker diverge) later, but we need some marker discovery mechanism for that. which are not easy.
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:25:34 -0800 exchange: add a new method to pull markers
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:25:34 -0800] rev 823
exchange: add a new method to pull markers It has both local and wire protocol implementation. This command does not requires escaping of the marker and are expecting to me highly faster than the pushkey method. The other main point is that command is to accept a `heads` and `common` argument to select to pull changeset only relevant to a set a of node. We are not using this capability yet but we'll do it soon
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:55:34 -0800 exchange: add the pushmarker wireproto command to simple4server
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:55:34 -0800] rev 822
exchange: add the pushmarker wireproto command to simple4server This will allow simple server side support. (yes, code duplication is bad, I won't do it too much mom)
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:40:29 -0800 exchange: introduce a wireprotocol command to push markers
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:40:29 -0800] rev 821
exchange: introduce a wireprotocol command to push markers Pushkey is not adapted to transmit a stream of binary data. We used it as a hack so far. We add a new wire protocol command to speed the things up (and also push all the markers in a single transaction). The proper way to do it is to introduce bundle2 in core, but this will already help in the mean time.
(0) -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip