On 10/15/2016 09:06 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:42:12 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 10/14/2016 05:35 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Yuya Nishihara <y...@tcha.org>
# Date 1476455580 -32400
#      Fri Oct 14 23:33:00 2016 +0900
# Node ID 18ba0036dd81db9e45fd1a450c7f207f1b89f22c
# Parent  5cb830801855dbb63e98b948e355bc995d295bf3
revset: for x^2, do not take null as a valid p2 revision

Since we don't count null p2 revision as a parent, x^2 should never return
null even if null is explicitly populated.

I've pushed this as a net improvement.

diff --git a/mercurial/revset.py b/mercurial/revset.py
--- a/mercurial/revset.py
+++ b/mercurial/revset.py
@@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ def parentspec(repo, subset, x, n, order
         elif n == 2:
             parents = cl.parentrevs(r)
-            if len(parents) > 1:
+            if parents[1] != node.nullrev:

Is there any chance that p1 is nullid and p2 is not?


Also, how does this behave if r is a root (p1 and p2 is nullid).

Should we instead filter the parents list ?::

   parents = [p for p in cl.parentrevs(r) if p != nullrev]

IMHO, that's undecided problem. It doesn't make sense to take p2=null as
a valid relation because otherwise all revisions must be rooted to null (b),
which doesn't agree with how we draw a graph including null (a).

  (a) -1 - 0 - 1 ...

  (b) -1 = 0 - 1
       \      /

But we could say '0^1' (or 'null:tip & 0^1') is null per the graph (a). So
I fixed only 'x^2 -> null', which is clearly wrong.

I remember a discussion about having the special revision excluded unless something else in the revset make a direct reference to it. But this is a discussion for after this cycle.


Pierre-Yves David
Mercurial-devel mailing list

Reply via email to