Re: [PATCH 8 of 8] bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

2016-10-10 Thread Yuya Nishihara 
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:41:13 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> On 10/09/2016 10:41 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:57:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >> # HG changeset patch
> >> # User Pierre-Yves David 
> >> # Date 1472008186 -7200
> >> #  Wed Aug 24 05:09:46 2016 +0200
> >> # Node ID 4df38a2b962c5cccb1a3f6716a7d6a872832b662
> >> # Parent  e5012181a722d5cb544c935400c676fce2d7b0a8
> >> # EXP-Topic bisect
> >> bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop
> >>
> >> Having initialisation done during the first iteration is cute, but can be
> >> avoided.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py
> >> --- a/mercurial/commands.py
> >> +++ b/mercurial/commands.py
> >> @@ -893,6 +893,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
> >>  node, p2 = repo.dirstate.parents()
> >>  if p2 != nullid:
> >>  raise error.Abort(_('current bisect revision is a merge'))
> >> +if rev:
> >> +node = repo[scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)].node()
> >
> > It seems we need to initialize node even if --noupdate is specified.
> 
> Hum, yes, that patch result in 'rev' being ignored with in the noupdate 
> case. getting this conditional one level up is fixing this. I assume you 
> want a V2?

Yes, V2 please.
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH 8 of 8] bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

2016-10-10 Thread Pierre-Yves David 



On 10/09/2016 10:41 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:57:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:

# HG changeset patch
# User Pierre-Yves David 
# Date 1472008186 -7200
#  Wed Aug 24 05:09:46 2016 +0200
# Node ID 4df38a2b962c5cccb1a3f6716a7d6a872832b662
# Parent  e5012181a722d5cb544c935400c676fce2d7b0a8
# EXP-Topic bisect
bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

Having initialisation done during the first iteration is cute, but can be
avoided.

diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py
--- a/mercurial/commands.py
+++ b/mercurial/commands.py
@@ -893,6 +893,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
 node, p2 = repo.dirstate.parents()
 if p2 != nullid:
 raise error.Abort(_('current bisect revision is a merge'))
+if rev:
+node = repo[scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)].node()


It seems we need to initialize node even if --noupdate is specified.


Hum, yes, that patch result in 'rev' being ignored with in the noupdate 
case. getting this conditional one level up is fixing this. I assume you 
want a V2?


Cheers,

--
Pierre-Yves David
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Re: [PATCH 8 of 8] bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

2016-10-09 Thread Yuya Nishihara 
On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:57:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Pierre-Yves David 
> # Date 1472008186 -7200
> #  Wed Aug 24 05:09:46 2016 +0200
> # Node ID 4df38a2b962c5cccb1a3f6716a7d6a872832b662
> # Parent  e5012181a722d5cb544c935400c676fce2d7b0a8
> # EXP-Topic bisect
> bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop
> 
> Having initialisation done during the first iteration is cute, but can be
> avoided.
> 
> diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py
> --- a/mercurial/commands.py
> +++ b/mercurial/commands.py
> @@ -893,6 +893,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
>  node, p2 = repo.dirstate.parents()
>  if p2 != nullid:
>  raise error.Abort(_('current bisect revision is a merge'))
> +if rev:
> +node = repo[scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)].node()

It seems we need to initialize node even if --noupdate is specified.

>  try:
>  while changesets:
>  # update state
> @@ -910,9 +912,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
>  raise error.Abort(_("%s killed") % command)
>  else:
>  transition = "bad"
> -ctx = scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)
> -rev = None # clear for future iterations
> -state[transition].append(ctx.node())
> +state[transition].append(node)
> +ctx = repo[node]
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

[PATCH 8 of 8] bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

2016-10-09 Thread Pierre-Yves David 
# HG changeset patch
# User Pierre-Yves David 
# Date 1472008186 -7200
#  Wed Aug 24 05:09:46 2016 +0200
# Node ID 4df38a2b962c5cccb1a3f6716a7d6a872832b662
# Parent  e5012181a722d5cb544c935400c676fce2d7b0a8
# EXP-Topic bisect
bisect: extra a small initialisation outside of a loop

Having initialisation done during the first iteration is cute, but can be
avoided.

diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py
--- a/mercurial/commands.py
+++ b/mercurial/commands.py
@@ -893,6 +893,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
 node, p2 = repo.dirstate.parents()
 if p2 != nullid:
 raise error.Abort(_('current bisect revision is a merge'))
+if rev:
+node = repo[scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)].node()
 try:
 while changesets:
 # update state
@@ -910,9 +912,8 @@ def bisect(ui, repo, rev=None, extra=Non
 raise error.Abort(_("%s killed") % command)
 else:
 transition = "bad"
-ctx = scmutil.revsingle(repo, rev, node)
-rev = None # clear for future iterations
-state[transition].append(ctx.node())
+state[transition].append(node)
+ctx = repo[node]
 ui.status(_('changeset %d:%s: %s\n') % (ctx, ctx, transition))
 hbisect.checkstate(state)
 # bisect
___
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel