kevincox added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> ancestors.rs:347
> }
> -
> -let max_bases =
> -bases_visit.iter().cloned().max().unwrap_or(NULL_REVISION);
> -let max_revs =
> -revs_visit.iter().cloned().max().unwrap_or(NULL_REVISION);
> -
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rHG9060af281be7: rust: itering less on MissingAncestors.bases
for max() (authored by gracinet, committed by ).
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5945?vs
gracinet updated this revision to Diff 14057.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5945?vs=14046&id=14057
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5945
AFFECTED FILES
rust/hg-core/src/ancestors.rs
rust/hg-core/src/dagops.rs
rust/h
gracinet added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> kevincox wrote in ancestors.rs:41
> If you don't want to depend on the value of NULL_REVISION you can use the
> minimum value for the type backing revision.
>
> Other special revisions shouldn't be relevant because you shouldn't be
> comparing
kevincox added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> gracinet wrote in ancestors.rs:41
> I must confess to have hesitated a bit on that one. On one hand, it would
> work, but semantically if ever a new "special" revision -2 is introduced,
> this could become problematic. On the other hand, there a
gracinet added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> kevincox wrote in ancestors.rs:41
> Does it make sense to just default this to -1 and remove the option?
I must confess to have hesitated a bit on that one. On one hand, it would work,
but semantically if ever a new "special" revision -2 is intr
gracinet updated this revision to Diff 14046.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5945?vs=14042&id=14046
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5945
AFFECTED FILES
rust/hg-core/src/ancestors.rs
rust/hg-core/src/dagops.rs
CHANGE
kevincox accepted this revision.
kevincox added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> ancestors.rs:41
> bases: HashSet,
> +max_base: Option,
> }
Does it make sense to just default this to -1 and remove the option?
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.o
gracinet created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: mercurial-devel, kevincox, durin42.
Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.
REVISION SUMMARY
Instead of iterating on the whole `self.bases` each time to find
its max, we keep the latter in a separate member attribute and
keep it up to
