yuja added a comment.
Can you send a follow-up to fix these issues?
INLINE COMMENTS
> uncommit.py:259
> +# identify the commit from which to unamend
> +curctx = repo['.']
> +
Probably better to query `curctx` after locks are taken.
> uncommit.py:280
> +extras =
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rHG867990238dc6: unamend: move fb extension unamend to core
(authored by pulkit, committed by ).
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821?vs=3671=4054
pulkit added a comment.
Any updates on this?
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, durham
Cc: quark, durin42, ryanmce, singhsrb, durham, mercurial-devel
___
Mercurial-devel
pulkit updated this revision to Diff 3671.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821?vs=3421=3671
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
AFFECTED FILES
hgext/uncommit.py
tests/test-unamend.t
CHANGE DETAILS
diff --git
durin42 added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> durham wrote in uncommit.py:265
> I'd just let unamend undo an unamend. Letting unamend toggle back and forth
> between the two states seems like it might grant the user more confidence in
> the command, even.
Works for me. Add some
durham added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> pulkit wrote in uncommit.py:265
> Okay while trying to add this condition, I found we cannot refuse to unamend
> a changeset on the basis of unamend_source, for e.g
> `a -amend-> b -unamend-> a' -amend-> c -unamend-> a''`
>
> But if we refuse on
pulkit added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> durin42 wrote in uncommit.py:265
> Should we also look for unamend_source in the extra, and potentially refuse
> to unamend an unamend? Or not?
Okay while trying to add this condition, I found we cannot refuse to unamend a
changeset on the basis
pulkit added a subscriber: quark.
pulkit added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> durin42 wrote in uncommit.py:247
> undo the _most recent_ amend? or can I run this iteratively and undo many
> amends in sequence?
Nice catch, it should be undo the _most recent_ amend. Thanks!
> durin42 wrote
durin42 added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> uncommit.py:247
> +def unamend(ui, repo, **opts):
> +"""undo the amend operation on a current changeset
> +
undo the _most recent_ amend? or can I run this iteratively and undo many
amends in sequence?
> uncommit.py:265
> +markers =
pulkit updated this revision to Diff 3421.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821?vs=2493=3421
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
AFFECTED FILES
hgext/uncommit.py
tests/test-unamend.t
CHANGE DETAILS
diff --git
durham accepted this revision.
durham added a comment.
Overall looks good to me. My one comment is probably not enough to block
this going in.
INLINE COMMENTS
> uncommit.py:260
> +prednode = markers[0].prednode()
> +predctx = unfi[prednode]
> +
Might be worth doing the predecessor
pulkit added a comment.
This is lying here from a long time. It will be good some feedback is given.
:)
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, durham
Cc: ryanmce, singhsrb, durham, mercurial-devel
ryanmce added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> ryanmce wrote in uncommit.py:260
> Test test
Tested nested comments, sorry for the spam.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, durham
Cc: ryanmce, singhsrb, durham,
pulkit updated this revision to Diff 2493.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821?vs=2128=2493
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
AFFECTED FILES
hgext/uncommit.py
tests/test-unamend.t
CHANGE DETAILS
diff --git
ryanmce added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> durham wrote in uncommit.py:260
> This should be in a with statement probably? Can we just have it be as part
> of the top level lock with statement?
Test test
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
pulkit planned changes to this revision.
pulkit added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821#14116, @singhsrb wrote:
> I just wanted to mention that unamend command does not track copytrace
information properly.
That's a pretty good catch. Thanks a lot.
REPOSITORY
singhsrb added a comment.
I just wanted to mention that unamend command does not track copytrace
information properly. For example, if we do:
touch dummy
hg commit -Aqm 'dummy'
hg cp dummy dummy2
hg commit -Aqm 'dummy2'
hg cp dummy2 dummy3
hg amend
hg log -f
pulkit updated this revision to Diff 2128.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821?vs=2092=2128
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
AFFECTED FILES
hgext/uncommit.py
tests/test-unamend.t
CHANGE DETAILS
diff --git
durham requested changes to this revision.
durham added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Generally looks good. Just need to fix the transaction thing.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D821
To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, durham
durham added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> uncommit.py:260
> +
> +tr = repo.transaction('unamend')
> +with dirstate.parentchange():
This should be in a with statement probably? Can we just have it be as part of
the top level lock with statement?
REPOSITORY
rHG
pulkit created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mercurial-devel.
Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.
REVISION SUMMARY
unamend extension adds an unamend command which undoes the effect of the amend
command. This patch moves the unamend command from that extension to uncommit
21 matches
Mail list logo
