Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Boris Feld wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-13 at 09:03 -0800, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Boris Feld > > wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > > I have a

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Pulkit Goyal
I agree that the exchange of obsmarkers don't have a very good UI. Not only the prune markers, in case of divergence we don't have a good UI yet. I have an idea as follows: 1) Let's keep push behavior as what it is today. 2) For each pull, let's write a state file (or some obsfile) which will

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Jun Wu
Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-11-15 14:15:44 -0500: > > On Nov 15, 2017, at 14:12, Jun Wu wrote: > > I think there are 2 kinds of "prune"s that might be treated differently: > > > > o C o C > > | | > > x B (B -> (),

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Augie Fackler
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 14:12, Jun Wu wrote: > > Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-11-15 11:23:25 -0500: >> I don't disagree, but it's *extremely* rare experimentally on hg. I'd >> encourage running a similar analysis on your own repositories to get a >> sense of how

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Jun Wu
Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-11-15 11:23:25 -0500: > I don't disagree, but it's *extremely* rare experimentally on hg. I'd > encourage running a similar analysis on your own repositories to get a > sense of how many prunes have ever been meaningfully exchanged. I bet it's > a

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: > > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 14:48, Boris Feld wrote: > > > > [...] > >> > >>> > >>> I /think/ the new visibility work proposed by Jun, Durham, and > >>> others might > >>> offer some solutions to this

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-15 Thread Augie Fackler
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 14:48, Boris Feld wrote: > > [...] >> >>> >>> I /think/ the new visibility work proposed by Jun, Durham, and >>> others might >>> offer some solutions to this problem. Rather than speculate based >>> on my >>> limited knowledge of that proposal, I

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-14 Thread Boris Feld
[...] > > > > > I /think/ the new visibility work proposed by Jun, Durham, and > > others might > > offer some solutions to this problem. Rather than speculate based > > on my > > limited knowledge of that proposal, I am hoping someone with more > > knowledge > > could weigh in more

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-14 Thread Boris Feld
On Mon, 2017-11-13 at 09:03 -0800, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Boris Feld > wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I > > want > > > to run by people

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-13 Thread Jun Wu
Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-11-10 17:58:34 -0500: > Here's a proposal I ran by Martin probably a year ago, and that he > didn't immediately hate: > > Prunes are different from regular obsolete markers. By default, you > don't push prunes, and pulled prunes are not applied, but

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-13 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Boris Feld wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want > > to run by people to see if it can be supported. > > > > Changesets are pushed to the

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-13 Thread Gregory Szorc
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Boris Feld wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 20:34 +0100, Boris Feld wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want > > > to run by people to see if

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-13 Thread Boris Feld
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 20:34 +0100, Boris Feld wrote: > On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want > > to run by people to see if it can be supported. > > > > Changesets are pushed to the Firefox repo via a

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-10 Thread Augie Fackler
(+junw for visibility in case he's got an idea, +martinvonz in case he remembers downsides we thought of I've since forgotten.) On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:06:43AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want to run > by people to see if it can

Re: Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-03 Thread Boris Feld
On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 10:06 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want > to run by people to see if it can be supported. > > Changesets are pushed to the Firefox repo via a landing service. This > service essentially imports changesets

Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

2017-11-02 Thread Gregory Szorc
I have a potential use case for obsmarkers / visibility that I want to run by people to see if it can be supported. Changesets are pushed to the Firefox repo via a landing service. This service essentially imports changesets [submitted by the author] and rebases them onto the repo head. Today,