So, what is the status of this series?
I've important speedup work stuck behind it so I would like to see the
topic move forward.
On 05/03/2017 09:09 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 05/03/2017 03:46 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2017 15:06:05 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 05/03/2017 09:51 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 01:43:38 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>
# Date 1493742678 -7200
# Tue May 02 18:31:18 2017 +0200
# Branch stable
# Node ID 6697da7c4eab3fbe3588a2f91fa3f99b16f808ac
# Parent fbb5f4bf94928b98fa87871e84bb2ef972ec2d51
# EXP-Topic obscache
# Available At
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/users/marmoute/mercurial/
# hg pull
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/users/marmoute/mercurial/ -r
6697da7c4eab
transaction: introduce "changes" dictionary to precisely track updates
The transaction is already tracking some data intended for hooks (in
'hookargs'). However, that information is minimal as we optimise for
passing data to other processes through environment variables.
There are
multiple places were we could use more complete and lower level
information locally (eg: cache update, better report of changes to
hooks, etc...).
For this purpose we introduces a 'changes' dictionary on the
transaction. It is intended to track every changes happening to the
repository (eg: new revs, bookmarks move, phases move, obs-markers,
etc).
For now we just adds the 'changes' dictionary. We'll adds more
tracking
and usages over time.
diff --git a/mercurial/transaction.py b/mercurial/transaction.py
--- a/mercurial/transaction.py
+++ b/mercurial/transaction.py
@@ -137,6 +137,10 @@ class transaction(object):
releasefn = lambda tr, success: None
self.releasefn = releasefn
+ # A dict dedicated to precisely tracking the changes
introduced in the
+ # transaction.
+ self.changes = {}
I'm not sure if it's good idea to add more free-form dict to the
transaction
class, since that would make code less manageable in general.
Can you elaborate on your worries here?
The content of the dictionnary should be strictly defined by the
localrepo object, and the data should be filled at low level by code
that already requires a transaction to be present. So I think the result
will be quite manageable.
We -need- something else than "hookargs" to carry transaction related
information. For example we needs to tracks bookmark movement, phases
changes and tags movement. The "hookargs" dictionnary is not appropriate
to track such data.
My concern is unclear, sorry. The transaction code seems hard to
review because
it has arbitrary hooks, weakrefs in them, hookargs dict, etc. And now
'changes'
dict. They all seem to make things too abstract.
I believe the result looks better overall than before, but I can't say
the
transaction itself gets better.
The net result at the end of my work should be clearer:
- code tracking changes should be clearer and safer,
- code reacting to changes would have more well defined spot to react to
these changes.
(as a bonus, we might be able to compute the hookargs, dict for the
'changes' one at some point)
Cheers,
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
