On 4/16/19 12:56 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:54 AM Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregory.sz...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 5:56 PM Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org
<mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>> wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net
<mailto:pierre-yves.da...@octobus.net>>
# Date 1554472565 -7200
# Fri Apr 05 15:56:05 2019 +0200
# Node ID 0adcfded9b03fff84190594ef29e37110967419f
# Parent d5f42ea7b06825ee86620cdc18aaa3a53504bff5
# EXP-Topic hgweb-obsolete
# Available At https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
# hg pull
https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ -r 0adcfded9b03
pull: deal with locally filtered changeset passed into --rev
Nowadays, it is possible to explicitly pull a remote revision
that end up being
hidden locally (eg: obsoleted locally). However before this
patch, some
internal processing where crashing trying to resolve a filtered
revision.
Without this patches, the pull output result a confusing output:
$ hg pull ../repo-Bob --rev 956063ac4557
pulling from ../repo-Bob
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 2 changesets with 0 changes to 2 files (+1 heads)
(2 other changesets obsolete on arrival)
abort:
00changelog.i@956063ac4557828781733b2d5677a351ce856f59: filtered
node!
The existing abort message is bad and should be improved because
typical users won't have a clue what it means.
But I have reservations about this patch because it isn't clear what
will happen with `pull -u -r <hidden>`. If the working directory
will be updated to a hidden revision without --hidden specified,
this feels wrong to me.
Oh - maybe part 5 (and later?) address my concerns?
It does. Regarding the abort message. I know we have a better message
available for this kind of error. I am not sure why that better message
is not used here and I intend to dig into that next cycle (there are a
couple of usual suspect: wrong exception types, bits still in evolve
extension, etc…)
Could we get test coverage showing what happens in this case? Please
also check for behavior with `hg clone -r <hidden>` and `hg clone -u
<rev>` as well.
(as you already noticed, this is addressed in the next patch).
Also, I'm a little confused about "checkout" and "brev" both doing
similar things. It seems that "checkout" is used internally and
"brev" is used for user-facing output. I wish this code were better
documented. But that is scope bloat...
+1
Cheers,
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
