At Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:54:37 -0800,
Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Rodrigo Damazio via Mercurial-devel
> <mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org> wrote:
> > Getting back to this after the end-of-year hiatus (yes, I know it happens to
> > be during another code freeze :) I seem to have good timing).
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Pierre-Yves David
> > <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/21/2016 04:21 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I got these two pieces right, it looks like we could just apply
> >>> the improvement to 'visitdir' to 'set:your/glob/*' and have your
> >>> usecase filled while not jumping into UI changes. Would that work
> >>> for you ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not without a third set of changes, since set expansion doesn't use
> >>> visitdir (or the matcher being built) at all - the dependency is that
> >>> building the matcher depends on expanding the set (and thus the set
> >>> can't depend on the matcher).
> >>> It would technically be doable for re:, but I'm wary of getting into the
> >>> business of parsing and special-casing regexes to assume what they match
> >>> or don't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rodrigo and I chatted directly about this a couple of days ago. Here is a
> >> quick summary of my new understanding of the situation.
> >>
> >> Fileset
> >> -------
> >>
> >> Fileset (behind "set:") can give the right result, but it is powered by
> >> not very modern code, it follow the old revset principle of "get everything
> >> and then run filters on that everything". That does not fit Rodrigo needs
> >> at
> >> all. It was easy to make 'set:' a bit smarter in the simple case but then
> >> we
> >> get into the issue that the matcher class is using 'set:' in a strange,
> >> non-lazy, way that does not use all the 'visitdir' feature Rodrigo/Google
> >> needs.
> >>
> >> So in short, fileset needs a rework before being usable in a demanding
> >> context.
> >>
> >>
> >> Current path restriction capability
> >> -----------------------------------
> >>
> >> The 'Match' class already have logic to restrict the path visited
> >> (implemented in the 'visitdir' method). To clarify, this logic as no effect
> >> on the returned match but is only an optimization for the directory we
> >> visit. It seems to only kicks in when treemanifest is used.
> >> This logic already works with a couple of patterns type (all pattern use
> >> the same class). However, that logic currently do not support the case were
> >> one want to select some subdirectory and skips the rest of the subtrees
> >> under it.
> >
> >
> > That is correct.
> >
> >> note: Rodrigo, you seems to have a good understanding of the logic. Do you
> >> think you could document the involved attributes (_includeroots,
> >> _includedirs, _excluderoots, etc) That would help a lot the next poor souls
> >> looking at the code.
> >
> >
> > Sure. It took me a while to understand that "roots" means "recursive
> > directories" and "dirs" means "non-recursive directories" in that code - it
> > all became much more clear after that. I'll be sure to add comments in my
> > patch and/or rename the attributes.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Way forward
> >> -----------
> >>
> >> That limitation in the matcher class optimization is the main blocker for
> >> Rodrigo/Google needs. The optimization is independent of the UI part we
> >> actually provides to user as all patterns use the same matcher class and
> >> some existing class could already benefit from this optimization.
> >>
> >> Rodrigo seems to have a patch to update the matcher code to track and
> >> optimize the "subdir-but-not-subtree" case. He has not submitted this patch
> >> yet. Submitting that patches seems the next step to me. It will get the
> >> matcher code in a state that can actually be used for the
> >> narrowhg+treemanifest usecase.
> >>
> >> Once that code is in, it seems easy to make sure various patterns use it
> >> basic, easily recognizable cases. We poked at updating the code to have
> >> basic regexp matching a subtree recognized as such and that was quite easy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rodrigo, does that match your current understanding of the situation?
> >
> >
> > It does.
> > And just to clarify on the patches - I sent an initial patch, then after
> > comments changes it significantly, so those are two different changes:
> >
> > The first implements a "files:" matcher which matches all files inside a
> > directory, non-recursively. This has no wildcards, so special-casing it in
> > visitdir and any other places needed results in clean and simple code ("if
> > it's files:, don't recurse").
> > The second implements "rootglob:" which allows any number of wildcards at
> > point in the path, and is part of Foozy's plan for the new set of matchers.
> > This adds some complexity in splitting dirs and roots (mentioned above) by
> > having to parse the wildcards, and then the visitdir change looks less clean
> > ("if it's a rootglob that has a single /* wildcard at the end, then don't
> > recurse" - other cases are possible but start to get more complex).
> >
> > For these reasons, I'd still prefer to get "files:" or similar in, but I'm
> > open for doing it either way. Please advise on the preferred way and I'll
> > send an updated patch (2 patches really - one for the matcher, one for the
> > visitdir optimization which makes it work with narrow).
>
> I'm fine with not doing rootglob:, but if I read foozy's proposal
> right, the proposed files: will be what he would call rootfiles:. I
> liked his proposal for a systematic naming, and if I got that right, I
> think we should call it that from the beginning so we don't end up
> with more aliases.
Yeah, we should avoid confusion of naming !
> I'd also like "rootfiles:foo" to *not* match the
> file "foo", but only files in the directory "foo/". I mention that
> because last I heard, he was unsure about that himself. Foozy, do you
> agree?
I don't have strong opinion against mode "XXX:", which matches against
both "just this file" and "files directly under this directory"
Therefore, I agree with adding new mode "XXX:", if it is needed (and
Rodrigo/Google think so).
But, name "files:" doesn't seem to suit for "XXX:" mode (at least, for
me).
Even if it matches against only "files directly under this directory",
"files:" doesn't yet.
Maybe, root cause of my bad feel is that "foo" of "files:foo" should
be the directory in both cases, even though mode name "files:" has
less "(under) this directory" flavor.
If it is possible to combine 2 modes below for solving issues of
Rodrigo/Google, I'm +1 for splitting "XXX:" into them, because naming
"YYY:" should be easier than naming "XXX:".
- "file:" matching against "just this file"
- "YYY:" matching against "files directly under this directory"
Are there any better (and short enough) names for "XXX:" or "YYY:"
than "files:" ?
- "filesin:" (Files-In) for "YYY:" (<=> "files under" as "dir:") ?
- "fileorin:" (File-Or-(Files-)In) for "XXX:" ?
Of course, I'm also OK with naming "XXX:" or "YYY:" as "files:", to go
forward :-)
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Rodrigo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mercurial-devel mailing list
> > Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
> > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
> >
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FUJIWARA Katsunori] fo...@lares.dti.ne.jp
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
