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
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)
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.
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.
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
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)