Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/18/2017 10:51 PM, Durham Goode wrote: I respond below, but I believe Jun has sent you a innovative proposal that may solve both of our needs and render this discussion irrelevant. So take a look at his proposal at your earliest convenience, since it may let us put this behind us. My

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/12/2017 12:16 AM, Jun Wu wrote: Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-11 22:29:15 +0200: [...] Mixing it with local only elements will not work. They are tons of simple case where we won't be able to determine a simple and consistent behavior for it. Even the local case

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

note: I recommend people interrested in this discussion to subscribe to the related wiki pages: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/CategoryEvolution https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/HideUnhidePlan On 04/14/2017 01:12 AM, Durham Goode wrote: On 4/13/17 2:43 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

(So it’s not buried: Pierre-yves, I’d like to grab a 30 minute VC to get a summary of your thoughts on this, since I know you’ve spent a lot of time on this, assuming you can make time Friday (the 21st).) > On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:37 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > >>> In my example

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Durham Goode writes: > I respond below, but I believe Jun has sent you a innovative proposal > that may solve both of our needs and render this discussion irrelevant. > So take a look at his proposal at your earliest convenience, since it > may let us put this behind us. > > On

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

I respond below, but I believe Jun has sent you a innovative proposal that may solve both of our needs and render this discussion irrelevant. So take a look at his proposal at your earliest convenience, since it may let us put this behind us. On 4/18/17 11:03 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/14/2017 01:04 AM, Durham Goode wrote: On 4/13/17 2:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: […] *Practical example* (/simplified/): Situation: * Facebook has a useful: hg undo command. * Facebook cares about hg undo, preserving the hash,

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Durham Goode wrote: On 4/13/17 2:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens. I had productive face to face discussion with multiple

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/13/17 2:43 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/13/2017 11:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens. I had productive face

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/13/17 2:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens. I had productive face to face discussion with multiple people in the past

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/13/2017 11:37 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens. I had productive face to face discussion with multiple people in the

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: I think the next step is for the community to officially figure out if this is a good direction to go in, however that happens. I had productive face to face discussion with multiple people in the past couple a day. Let us put all technical details

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/12/17 10:44 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: I just read this entire thread and am trying to wrap my head around different sides of the argument. I clearly see where Durham, Ryan, and others are coming from with "strip-based operations are bad." I think we can all agree on that. I can also see how

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Pierre-Yves David < pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2017 12:02 AM, Durham Goode wrote: > >> On 4/5/17 4:06 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >> >>> […] >>> The change proposed to evolution is problematic. As explain in my reply >>> to the other

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

TL;DR; I had a productive video call with Siddharth Agarwal today. We should be careful to not block the current path for completing changeset-evolution, but they are way forward that would allow to make progress on upstreaming Facebook work and improving local workflow while avoiding

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Augie Fackler a écrit : On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:44PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/06/2017 02:46 AM, Jun Wu wrote: obsstore-based hidden is broken by design, since it cannot unhide commits: $ hg export . > patch.txt $ hg prune . # could also be done by pulling obsmarkers from

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/5/17 2:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: I would like to formally propose a new pattern for dealing with hidden commits, along with the concrete steps to getting it enabled in core by default by the August release. The proposal is quite concise, so check out this 1-page Google doc for the

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/12/2017 12:20 AM, Kevin Bullock wrote: I'm not responding to any technical points in this e-mail; I only want to address the current tone of the discussion. On Apr 11, 2017, at 15:29, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/11/2017 12:43 AM, Augie Fackler

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Excerpts from Jun Wu's message of 2017-04-11 14:11:55 -0700: > Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-11 22:29:15 +0200: > > The issue you face here is related to known limitation of `hg strip`. > > When it removes the changesets, strip should also remove the > > obsolescence

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

I'm not responding to any technical points in this e-mail; I only want to address the current tone of the discussion. > On Apr 11, 2017, at 15:29, Pierre-Yves David > wrote: > > On 04/11/2017 12:43 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> This briefly confuses *me* when

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-11 22:29:15 +0200: > [...] > > Mixing it with local only elements will not work. They are tons of > simple case where we won't be able to determine a simple and consistent > behavior for it. Even the local case can quickly raise shortcoming

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-11 22:29:15 +0200: > The issue you face here is related to known limitation of `hg strip`. > When it removes the changesets, strip should also remove the > obsolescence markers leading to them. > > That will be fixed soon. Having strip able

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/11/2017 12:43 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:44PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/06/2017 02:46 AM, Jun Wu wrote: obsstore-based hidden is broken by design, since it cannot unhide commits: $ hg export . > patch.txt $ hg prune . # could also be done by

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:20:44PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > On 04/06/2017 02:46 AM, Jun Wu wrote: >> obsstore-based hidden is broken by design, since it cannot unhide commits: >> >> $ hg export . > patch.txt >> $ hg prune . # could also be done by pulling obsmarkers from a remote >>

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

I don't see as big of a conflict between evolve and locally hidden as others on this thread. I have a couple of specific responses below. But first, I wanted provide some specific examples of how this propsoal could/would work (I think a few people [martinvonz?] wanted this to ground the

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/06/2017 12:02 AM, Durham Goode wrote: On 4/5/17 4:06 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: […] The change proposed to evolution is problematic. As explain in my reply to the other thread[1], at minimum, removing the link between obsolescence and visibility is destroying the "global-state" property

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/06/2017 02:47 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: > […] That's why I want to focus on a scalable hidden storage solution that everyone can use (including evolve), To clarify this point. They are no need to plug evolution to a new storage system, the current approach is scalable[1]. In addition,

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/06/2017 02:46 AM, Jun Wu wrote: obsstore-based hidden is broken by design, since it cannot unhide commits: $ hg export . > patch.txt $ hg prune . # could also be done by pulling obsmarkers from a remote # peer, or it could be amend / metaedit etc. $ hg import --exact

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/5/17 2:28 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote: On 05/04/2017 02:11, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

(text re-arranged for clarity) On 4/6/17 1:46 AM, Jun Wu wrote: Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-06 01:01:19 +0200: (important bit about how we -already- have a generic hiding API is at the end of the email). Thanks. I used that and had a working general-purposed,

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

obsstore-based hidden is broken by design, since it cannot unhide commits: $ hg export . > patch.txt $ hg prune . # could also be done by pulling obsmarkers from a remote # peer, or it could be amend / metaedit etc. $ hg import --exact --bypass patch.txt # cannot really

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

(important bit about how we -already- have a generic hiding API is at the end of the email). On 04/05/2017 04:06 PM, Ryan McElroy wrote: On 4/5/17 12:06 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/05/2017 03:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: I think we really needs to take a step back here. Before

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Durham Goode wrote: > On 4/5/17 4:06 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: >> >> On 04/05/2017 03:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: >>> >>> There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits >>> lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/5/17 4:06 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/05/2017 03:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make

Re: Fwd: Hidden Commits in 4.3

com> Date: Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:20 PM Subject: Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3 To: Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Durham Goode <dur...@fb.com> wrote: There's

Fwd: Hidden Commits in 4.3

ct: Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3 To: Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Durham Goode <dur...@fb.com> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of discussion about h

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 05/04/2017 02:11, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make progress. I would like to formally propose a

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-05 13:06:04 +0200: > I think we really needs to take a step back here. Before thinking about > unification, I think we needs a clean definition of what we are doing > here. As mentioned in another thread[2], they are at least three >

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/5/17 12:06 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 04/05/2017 03:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 10:01, Ryan McElroy wrote: > > Side-note: +1 on Simon's request to put the doc onto the wiki as a plan. In general, +1 on wiki pages, but only after the potential for a storm of comments has dwindled: discussion in doc comments is significantly less painful

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/5/17 5:29 AM, Durham Goode wrote: On 4/4/17 8:58 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Durham Goode > wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 04/05/2017 03:11 AM, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make progress. I would like to formally propose a

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/4/17 8:58 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Durham Goode > wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Durham Goode wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits > lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting > our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make progress. > > I

Re: Hidden Commits in 4.3

On 4/4/17 6:11 PM, Durham Goode wrote: There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make progress. I would like to formally propose a new

Hidden Commits in 4.3

There's been a lot of discussion about how to hide and unhide commits lately [0][1], and I feel the complexity of our current approach is hurting our ability to reason about it, making it impossible to make progress. I would like to formally propose a new pattern for dealing with hidden