Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-30 12:43:31 -0400: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > > I'll drop it from patchwork and send a new version with better documentation > > and some planned fixes. The next version has a same core idea, but the > >

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > I'll drop it from patchwork and send a new version with better documentation > and some planned fixes. The next version has a same core idea, but the > interface is more formalized and is made future proof in mind. The interface >

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Per discussion on IRC with marmoute, this series lacks of documentation. I'll drop it from patchwork and send a new version with better documentation and some planned fixes. The next version has a same core idea, but the interface is more formalized and is made future proof in mind. The interface

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Gregory Szorc's message of 2017-03-26 11:25:28 -0700: > I have a thought experiment to add. > > The obsolete store is strictly ordered. So for a repo detached from the > world and not doing any exchange, "date" is strictly metadata and the > offset of a marker in the store is all

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > It seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot by consolidating all > markers into a single local store. Have we ever considered having a separate > store per remote or at least preserving the illusion of a

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On 25/03/2017 08:20, Simon Farnsworth wrote: > On 23/03/2017 22:15, Jun Wu wrote: >> Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 17:53:39 -0400: >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jun Wu wrote: > As for alternatives, a correct solution needs to refer to the marker it

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 20:59:03 -0400: > > > For clocks going backwards, we can detect that, say we get > > > maxdate = max(m.date for m in markers), then if we are going to write a > > > marker with date

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On 23/03/2017 22:15, Jun Wu wrote: Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 17:53:39 -0400: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jun Wu wrote: As for alternatives, a correct solution needs to refer to the marker it is replacing. Since cycles should be rare, can we record

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 20:59:03 -0400: > > For clocks going backwards, we can detect that, say we get > > maxdate = max(m.date for m in markers), then if we are going to write a > > marker with date < maxdate, we could warn people, and/or write > > (date+rand(0 to 1))

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > > Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 17:53:39 -0400: >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jun Wu wrote: As for alternatives, a correct solution needs to refer to the marker it is replacing.

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-23 17:53:39 -0400: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jun Wu wrote: > >> As for alternatives, a correct solution needs to refer to the marker it is > >> replacing. Since cycles should be rare, can we record the full "replaced > >>

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:57:08AM -0700, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > > On 03/13/2017 09:23 AM, Durham Goode wrote: > >On 3/13/17 2:48 AM, Jun Wu wrote: > >># HG changeset patch > >># User Jun Wu > >># Date 1489395002 25200 > >># Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 > >># Node ID

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Sean Farley wrote: >>> > By the way, I'm not sure if you have noticed that "inhibit" was recently >>> > moved to a directory called "hack/" in mutable-history. >>> >>> Yes, things in evolve are still baking. I don't see the need to rush obs >>>

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jun Wu wrote: >> As for alternatives, a correct solution needs to refer to the marker it is >> replacing. Since cycles should be rare, can we record the full "replaced >> marker" data inline in the new marker? In local storage, that could be an > >

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Jun Wu writes: > Excerpts from Sean Farley's message of 2017-03-22 13:18:29 -0700: >> Heh, yes, that made me chuckle. I understand that *you* need this. > > I'd argue *most people* wants this. See below. > >> But that's the thing. I'm not taking "inhibit" into consideration >>

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Sean Farley's message of 2017-03-22 13:18:29 -0700: > Heh, yes, that made me chuckle. I understand that *you* need this. I'd argue *most people* wants this. See below. > But that's the thing. I'm not taking "inhibit" into consideration > because inhibit isn't a common workflow.

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Jun Wu's message of 2017-03-21 22:42:11 -0700: > The key here is the order of operation 2 and 3. If 2 happens after 3, then B > gets hidden as expected. Currently, this cycle will get both B and C hidden, > which I don't think is a sane behavior. Sorry. It should be "Currently, 3 is

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Gregory Szorc's message of 2017-03-21 19:32:06 -0700: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > > > Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-03-21 18:03:33 -0400: > > > > As long as exchange sends dates, markers are globally ordered, and they > > > >

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-03-13 11:57:08 -0700: > > On 03/13/2017 09:23 AM, Durham Goode wrote: > > On 3/13/17 2:48 AM, Jun Wu wrote: > >> # HG changeset patch > >> # User Jun Wu > >> # Date 1489395002 25200 > >> # Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 > >> #

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On 03/13/2017 09:23 AM, Durham Goode wrote: On 3/13/17 2:48 AM, Jun Wu wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Jun Wu # Date 1489395002 25200 # Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 # Node ID 6ae6d1069ba1d4089afaeb0bb8ef2411983a1292 # Parent 0280ee091bd0ae33aa0a67b0c8a55ccffd2e0718 #

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

Excerpts from Durham Goode's message of 2017-03-13 09:23:49 -0700: > On 3/13/17 2:48 AM, Jun Wu wrote: > > # HG changeset patch > > # User Jun Wu > > # Date 1489395002 25200 > > # Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 > > # Node ID 6ae6d1069ba1d4089afaeb0bb8ef2411983a1292 > > # Parent

Re: [PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

On 3/13/17 2:48 AM, Jun Wu wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Jun Wu # Date 1489395002 25200 # Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 # Node ID 6ae6d1069ba1d4089afaeb0bb8ef2411983a1292 # Parent 0280ee091bd0ae33aa0a67b0c8a55ccffd2e0718 # Available At

[PATCH 4 of 4 V2] obsolete: allow cycles

# HG changeset patch # User Jun Wu # Date 1489395002 25200 # Mon Mar 13 01:50:02 2017 -0700 # Node ID 6ae6d1069ba1d4089afaeb0bb8ef2411983a1292 # Parent 0280ee091bd0ae33aa0a67b0c8a55ccffd2e0718 # Available At https://bitbucket.org/quark-zju/hg-draft # hg pull