Not a problem for lfs as far as I'm concerned.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 12:34, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:10:31PM -0800, Martin von Zweigbergk via
> Mercurial-devel wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Martin von Zweigbergk
> > # Date 1484681102 28800
> > # Tue Ja
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 17:50 Remi Chaintron wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Remi Chaintron
> # Date 1483636648 0
> # Thu Jan 05 17:17:28 2017 +
> # Node ID 8701df1c04340e9951481dc4c366ba550b4e790f
> # Parent a93b1ff78332f4f78e77ec9aaa2c63f7f975399c
> revlog: flag processor
>
> Ad
I'm convinced already :)
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 at 06:46, Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/30/2016 05:38 PM, Rémi Chaintron wrote:
> > You're right, this is a mistake on my part. The reasoning behind
> > dropping this code
Updated, will send with v7.
Thanks!
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 at 15:07 Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Remi Chaintron wrote:
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Remi Chaintron
> # Date 1482596881 18000
> # Sat Dec 24 11:28:01 2016 -0500
> # Node ID c94d2907a470ca03b4a4a8da
Following discussion with marmoute on IRC, I'll drop the rawrevision()
method for now.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 11:12 Augie Fackler wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Rémi Chaintron
> wrote:
> >
> > The actual rawrevision() method is simply a personal p
You're right, this is a mistake on my part. The reasoning behind dropping
this code is that in my current implementation, processflags() handles
checking whether the flags are known (both for revision() and
_addrevision()) so I moved this snippet to processflags().
Still makes sense to not spread t
r.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 10:44, Rémi Chaintron
wrote:
> Long story short, we need to pass the raw argument to processflags() so
> that it can determine which transform use. This allows to differentiate the
> regular use case (transform operations such as reading from a remote store
&
Long story short, we need to pass the raw argument to processflags() so
that it can determine which transform use. This allows to differentiate the
regular use case (transform operations such as reading from a remote store
in lfs's case) from changegroup generation and debug commands. The only way
Sounds good to me, I'm happy to follow the comment in revlog.py
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 at 13:31 Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/24/2016 05:36 PM, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Remi Chaintron
> > # Date 1482451718 18000
> > # Th
Forgot the commit message in this one, is there a way I can update this
single patch with the commit message?
Commit message:
revlog: processflags()
Add the ability for revlog objects to process revision flags and apply
registered transforms on read/write operations.
This patch intr
My bad, this is an artifact from merging on some other work and isn't used
in any capacity in the current design.
Notes for removal!
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 at 20:47, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:58:09AM +, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Remi Chaint
On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 at 02:49 Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 06:16 PM, Rémi Chaintron wrote:
> > Thanks for the awesome review.
> >
> > > +
> > > +def register(self, transformmap):
> > > +
Looking at the code in narrowrevlog.py on bitbucket, it looks like a good
use case to use the new flag processor method to bypass checkhash. Would
you be interested in discussing this approach / what your needs are?
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 at 05:55 Martin von Zweigbergk via Mercurial-devel <
mercuri
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 at 06:59 Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> It seems like the commit message needs to be updated too.
(Y)
>
> diff --git a/mercurial/changegroup.py b/mercurial/changegroup.py
> > --- a/mercurial/changegroup.py
> > +++ b/mercurial/changegroup.py
>
Thanks for the awesome review.
I included the changes in my current version and will update the stack once
I'm done with all required changes.
The approach I'm currently following relies on getting rid of the
flagprocessor object, instead relying on a single revlog.processflags()
method and an Ord
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 at 06:59 Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/23/2016 06:39 PM, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Remi Chaintron
> > # Date 1479922644 0
> > # Wed Nov 23 17:37:24 2016 +
> > # Branch stable
> > # Node ID 75ee47
Updated in local commit, should I wait for a complete review before sending
another patch?
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 16:41 Rémi Chaintron
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 16:30 Pierre-Yves David <
> pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/23/2016 06:39
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 16:30 Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/23/2016 06:39 PM, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Remi Chaintron
> > # Date 1479916365 0
> > # Wed Nov 23 15:52:45 2016 +
> > # Branch stable
> > # Node ID e908dd
On 11/16/16, 3:44 PM, "Augie Fackler" wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 09:12, Rémi Chaintron wrote:
>>
>> On 11/9/16, 5:17 PM, "Augie Fackler" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:04:04PM +0100, Remi Chaintron wrote:
>>>
On 11/9/16, 5:17 PM, "Augie Fackler" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:04:04PM +0100, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Remi Chaintron
> # Date 1477579974 -3600
> # Thu Oct 27 15:52:54 2016 +0100
> # Branch stable
> # Node ID c7dc98eb24cd40e4
On 11/9/16, 5:15 PM, "Augie Fackler" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:04:02PM +0100, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Remi Chaintron
> # Date 1477579974 -3600
> # Thu Oct 27 15:52:54 2016 +0100
> # Branch stable
> # Node ID fb19b40dd647dad4
On 11/9/16, 5:17 PM, "Augie Fackler" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Remi Chaintron wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Remi Chaintron
> # Date 1477579974 -3600
> # Thu Oct 27 15:52:54 2016 +0100
> # Branch stable
> # Node ID c16fc21
I will be off the grid until November 12, which is why I’m pre-emptively
sending these changes in case someone has the time to review them between
November 1 and November 12.
-- Rémi
On 10/27/16, 4:07 PM, "Gregory Szorc" wrote:
We're currently in the 4.0 feature freeze and this series isn't
23 matches
Mail list logo
