quark added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> martinvonz wrote in rebase.py:1070 > In this case, maybe we shouldn't have added `p` to `bases` above? Maybe that > block should be moved after this loop? Maybe it would be easier to keep track > of the bases in a list that's initialized to [None,None]? Or maybe if the > order of `newps` always matches `oldps`, can `bases` be calculated later and > not mixed in with the calculation of `newps`? No. New parents having an ancestor relationship does not mean the old parents have that relationship. It seems your test cases in `test-rebase-obsolete.t` would capture the behavior difference. > martinvonz wrote in rebase.py:1134 > Thanks for catching this case and warning about it! I wonder if we should > even error out early instead? Even if we decide to do that, feel free to > leave it for a followup. An error makes sense to me. But it changes more tests. I'll do that after https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D340. It's hard to detect it early without in-memory-changelog to do a dry-run rebase. > martinvonz wrote in rebase.py:1136 > It would probably be good to include the nodeid here just like we do on the > line above, especially since the revision number may point to something else > after the rebase is complete (if not using obsmarkers). This was just me being lazy. Ideally all these `%d:%s` thing should be a template config so we can hide revision numbers in production. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D21 To: quark, durin42, #hg-reviewers Cc: martinvonz, durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
