| Submitter | Sean Farley |
|---|---|
| Date | April 29, 2013, 10:38 p.m. |
| Message ID | <ddd8b869e48d8d353905.1367275122@laptop.local> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/1503/ |
| State | Superseded |
| Commit | 741d94aa92e4562f9ba3ac09a366e1e644ca3d16 |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial@ringworld.org> wrote: > On 29 Apr 2013, at 5:38 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > >> # HG changeset patch >> # User Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley@gmail.com> >> # Date 1367272357 18000 >> # Mon Apr 29 16:52:37 2013 -0500 >> # Branch stable >> # Node ID ddd8b869e48d8d353905e9c0b2964c3795a9dc88 >> # Parent d6ff913a84d296fc6d1ed129351eb215d7e6920e >> bookmarks: resolve divergent bookmarks when moving active bookmark forward >> >> This patch resolves divergent bookmarks between the current active bookmark >> MARK and the new destination. This situation can arise when pulling new >> changesets, abandoning your current changesets actively bookmarked with MARK >> via strip, and then doing a bare update. The non-divergent but active bookmark >> MARK is then moved to a common ancestor of the new changesets and the abandoned >> changesets. >> >> Test coverage is added. >> >> diff --git a/mercurial/bookmarks.py b/mercurial/bookmarks.py >> --- a/mercurial/bookmarks.py >> +++ b/mercurial/bookmarks.py >> @@ -169,24 +169,28 @@ >> del marks[mark] >> deleted = True >> return deleted >> >> def update(repo, parents, node): >> + deletefrom = parents >> marks = repo._bookmarks >> update = False >> cur = repo._bookmarkcurrent >> if not cur: >> return False >> >> if marks[cur] in parents: >> old = repo[marks[cur]] >> new = repo[node] >> + divs = [repo[b] for b in marks >> + if b.split('@', 1)[0] == cur.split('@', 1)[0]] >> + deletefrom = [b.node() for b in divs if b.descendant(new) or b == new] > > How come these two calculations are slightly different from those in patch 1? Mainly because of the surrounding code: in patch 1 there was already some code that used ancestors() while in this code there was already some code that used descendant(). I didn't know the ramifications (and code churn) of using a lazy generator here.
Patch
diff --git a/mercurial/bookmarks.py b/mercurial/bookmarks.py --- a/mercurial/bookmarks.py +++ b/mercurial/bookmarks.py @@ -169,24 +169,28 @@ del marks[mark] deleted = True return deleted def update(repo, parents, node): + deletefrom = parents marks = repo._bookmarks update = False cur = repo._bookmarkcurrent if not cur: return False if marks[cur] in parents: old = repo[marks[cur]] new = repo[node] + divs = [repo[b] for b in marks + if b.split('@', 1)[0] == cur.split('@', 1)[0]] + deletefrom = [b.node() for b in divs if b.descendant(new) or b == new] if old.descendant(new): marks[cur] = new.node() update = True - if deletedivergent(repo, parents, cur): + if deletedivergent(repo, deletefrom, cur): update = True if update: marks.write() return update diff --git a/tests/test-bookmarks-current.t b/tests/test-bookmarks-current.t --- a/tests/test-bookmarks-current.t +++ b/tests/test-bookmarks-current.t @@ -131,25 +131,31 @@ $ hg bookmark -i -m Y X $ hg bookmarks X 0:719295282060 Z 0:719295282060 -bare update moves the active bookmark forward +bare update moves the active bookmark forward and clear the divergent bookmarks $ echo a > a $ hg ci -Am1 adding a + $ echo b >> a + $ hg ci -Am2 + $ hg bookmark X@1 -r 1 + $ hg bookmark X@2 -r 2 $ hg update X 0 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved $ hg bookmarks * X 0:719295282060 + X@1 1:cc586d725fbe + X@2 2:49e1c4e84c58 Z 0:719295282060 $ hg update 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved updating bookmark X $ hg bookmarks - * X 1:cc586d725fbe + * X 2:49e1c4e84c58 Z 0:719295282060 test deleting .hg/bookmarks.current when explicitly updating to a revision