On 05/10/2017 03:42 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2017 00:45:02 +0200, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Mads Kiilerich <mad...@unity3d.com>
# Date 1494283376 -7200
# Tue May 09 00:42:56 2017 +0200
# Branch stable
# Node ID dd256de590dfd363fa5d497d566d456f471b8d52
# Parent 6710017995b4e8b361d6ad5b897ff7d0cc658285
graft: fix graft across merges of duplicates of grafted changes
Looks good to me. A couple of nits inline.
Graft used findmissingrevs to find the candidates for graft duplicates in the
destination. That function operates with the constraint:
2. N is not an ancestor of any node in 'common'
For our purpose, we do however need:
2. There are nodes in 'common' that doesn't have N as ancestor
The right candiates for graft duplicates could be computed with a revset:
only(destination,transitiveroots(graftset))
I guess it actually can be computed as
only(destination,roots(graftset+roots(graftset)::heads(graftset)))
BUT I realize it also is wrong. There could be criss-cross-ish cases
where multiple graftset roots have been merged to different branches
that have grafts of other roots as ancestor. My proposed patch using
min(graftset) would also fail that.
Instead, the only changesets we can be sure doesn't contain grafts of
any changeset in the graftset, are the ones that are common ancestors of
*all* changesets in the graftset:
only(destination,ancestor(graftset))
It will exclude one ancestor. In criss-cross cases where there will be
more ancestors, it might be inefficient but still correct.
Resending ...
/Mads
where transitiveroots would be a revset function for 'transitive root' and
return changesets in set with no ancestor changeset in set. There doesn't seem
to be any such function readily available, and we thus use the approximation of
just using the smallest revision in the graft set.
Can you copy this message as a code comment? It will help future readers.
This change will graft more correctly, but it will also in some cases make
graft slower by making it search through a bigger and unnecessary large sets of
changes to find duplicates.
Suppose revisions to be grafted are linear in general, I think this is
acceptable.
@@ -2295,7 +2295,8 @@ def _dograft(ui, repo, *revs, **opts):
# check ancestors for earlier grafts
ui.debug('scanning for duplicate grafts\n')
- for rev in repo.changelog.findmissingrevs(revs, [crev]):
+ expr = revsetlang.formatspec('only(%d,min(%ld))', crev, revs)
+ for rev in scmutil.revrange(repo, [expr]):
scmutil.revrange() may expand user aliases. Please use repo.revs() instead.
Alternatively, maybe we could use findmissingrevs(min(revs), ...) to minimize
the change?
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
