This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rHGd2055c13f1f4: rebase: enable multidest by default (authored
by quark, committed by ).
CHANGED PRIOR TO COMMIT
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063?vs=2702=4174#toc
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES
durin42 accepted this revision as: durin42.
durin42 added a comment.
I'm fine with this based on the reports that it's working well for FB. Anyone
else have an objection?
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc:
quark added a comment.
We have shipped restack based on this code path and haven't heard a problem
yet.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: krbullock, dlax, martinvonz, durin42, mercurial-devel
krbullock added a comment.
@quark @martinvonz Ping
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: krbullock, dlax, martinvonz, durin42, mercurial-devel
___
Mercurial-devel
martinvonz added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#22439, @quark wrote:
> Since the freeze is over. I'd like to know how to move forward.
Does that mean FB has now rewritten "hg restack" to use multi-destination
rebase and used that in production for a while?
quark requested review of this revision.
quark added a comment.
Since the freeze is over. I'd like to know how to move forward.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: dlax, martinvonz, durin42, mercurial-devel
martinvonz added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#19864, @durin42 wrote:
> I'm using "request changes" because I don't see how else I can un-do an
LGTM. @martinvonz and I talked some, and he's convinced me that we should see
if we can write an alias that uses multidest
durin42 requested changes to this revision.
durin42 added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I'm using "request changes" because I don't see how else I can un-do an LGTM.
@martinvonz and I talked some, and he's convinced me that we should see if we
can write an alias
quark added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> dlax wrote in rebase.py:645
> Maybe this could be in a `.. container:: verbose` block since it's an
> advanced feature?
I think the "SRC" feature itself is not that "advanced" and is easy to
understand. The problem is the revset for "restack" is
quark added a comment.
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1139 changes restack to use revsets. The
resulting code is simpler, and no longer do duplicated rebases.
From a high level, this feature basically allows some user-invisible logic
like rebase source and destination decision to be
dlax added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#18725, @durin42 wrote:
> (Note that I'd still welcome feedback from non-BigCo contributors here - is
this something we should make permanent? Have people been testing this? Etc.)
I have never tested this but it seems
quark added a comment.
Interface-wise, I'm thinking about defining `BASE` as `max(roots(ALLSRC) &
::SRC)^` to make it easier to use.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: dlax, martinvonz, durin42,
durin42 added a comment.
(Note that I'd still welcome feedback from non-BigCo contributors here - is
this something we should make permanent? Have people been testing this? Etc.)
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers,
durin42 added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#17791, @martinvonz wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#17789, @durin42 wrote:
>
> > I'm a fan. Will give it to Monday for any objections.
>
>
> I'm against. I'd like to see that the feature is indeed
quark added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#17791, @martinvonz wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#17789, @durin42 wrote:
>
> > I'm a fan. Will give it to Monday for any objections.
>
>
> I'm against. I'd like to see that the feature is indeed
martinvonz added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063#17789, @durin42 wrote:
> I'm a fan. Will give it to Monday for any objections.
I'm against. I'd like to see that the feature is indeed powerful enough for
handling the intended use cases before we turn it on.
durin42 accepted this revision as: durin42.
durin42 added a comment.
I'm a fan. Will give it to Monday for any objections.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D1063
To: quark, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: durin42, mercurial-devel
quark created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mercurial-devel.
Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.
REVISION SUMMARY
This was intended to be done by https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D470. But
there was a minor documentation
issue. The feature is quite usable now so it gets formally
18 matches
Mail list logo
