| Submitter | liscju |
|---|---|
| Date | June 20, 2016, 7:51 a.m. |
| Message ID | <9c9bacc0c8f7c830fe05.1466409061@liscju-VirtualBox> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/15544/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:51:01 +0200, liscju wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User liscju <piotr.listkiewicz@gmail.com> > # Date 1464814737 -7200 > # Wed Jun 01 22:58:57 2016 +0200 > # Node ID 9c9bacc0c8f7c830fe05ff47442d85ac9576fa04 > # Parent d269e7db2f55f812c9ee1efe5626602614174df3 > bookmarks: add 'hg pull -B .' for pulling the active bookmark (issue5258) Queued this, thanks. Can you update the help message as a follow-up? > +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py > @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): > # revision we try to pull (None is "all") > self.heads = heads > # bookmark pulled explicitly > - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks > + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) > + for bookmark in bookmarks] I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent that pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts?
Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> writes: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:51:01 +0200, liscju wrote: >> # HG changeset patch >> # User liscju <piotr.listkiewicz@gmail.com> >> # Date 1464814737 -7200 >> # Wed Jun 01 22:58:57 2016 +0200 >> # Node ID 9c9bacc0c8f7c830fe05ff47442d85ac9576fa04 >> # Parent d269e7db2f55f812c9ee1efe5626602614174df3 >> bookmarks: add 'hg pull -B .' for pulling the active bookmark (issue5258) > > Queued this, thanks. Can you update the help message as a follow-up? > >> +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py >> @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): >> # revision we try to pull (None is "all") >> self.heads = heads >> # bookmark pulled explicitly >> - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks >> + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) >> + for bookmark in bookmarks] > > I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent that > pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts? To add from a previous mail about this, I think we should expand '.' in the bookmark class (or util) and permanently reserve '.' from all namespaces. Are there any corner-cases to think about here?
On 06/20/2016 11:15 PM, Sean Farley wrote: > Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> writes: > >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:51:01 +0200, liscju wrote: >>> # HG changeset patch >>> # User liscju <piotr.listkiewicz@gmail.com> >>> # Date 1464814737 -7200 >>> # Wed Jun 01 22:58:57 2016 +0200 >>> # Node ID 9c9bacc0c8f7c830fe05ff47442d85ac9576fa04 >>> # Parent d269e7db2f55f812c9ee1efe5626602614174df3 >>> bookmarks: add 'hg pull -B .' for pulling the active bookmark (issue5258) >> >> Queued this, thanks. Can you update the help message as a follow-up? >> >>> +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py >>> @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): >>> # revision we try to pull (None is "all") >>> self.heads = heads >>> # bookmark pulled explicitly >>> - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks >>> + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) >>> + for bookmark in bookmarks] >> >> I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent that >> pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts? > > To add from a previous mail about this, I think we should expand '.' in > the bookmark class (or util) and permanently reserve '.' from all > namespaces. Are there any corner-cases to think about here? That would seems very wise. Let's do that.
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> writes: > On 06/20/2016 11:15 PM, Sean Farley wrote: >> Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:51:01 +0200, liscju wrote: >>>> # HG changeset patch >>>> # User liscju <piotr.listkiewicz@gmail.com> >>>> # Date 1464814737 -7200 >>>> # Wed Jun 01 22:58:57 2016 +0200 >>>> # Node ID 9c9bacc0c8f7c830fe05ff47442d85ac9576fa04 >>>> # Parent d269e7db2f55f812c9ee1efe5626602614174df3 >>>> bookmarks: add 'hg pull -B .' for pulling the active bookmark (issue5258) >>> >>> Queued this, thanks. Can you update the help message as a follow-up? >>> >>>> +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py >>>> @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): >>>> # revision we try to pull (None is "all") >>>> self.heads = heads >>>> # bookmark pulled explicitly >>>> - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks >>>> + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) >>>> + for bookmark in bookmarks] >>> >>> I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent that >>> pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts? >> >> To add from a previous mail about this, I think we should expand '.' in >> the bookmark class (or util) and permanently reserve '.' from all >> namespaces. Are there any corner-cases to think about here? > > That would seems very wise. Let's do that. > > -- > Pierre-Yves DAvid FYI, it seems your signature has a typo in your last name (unless you really meant 'DAvid').
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:15:30 -0700, Sean Farley wrote: > >> +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py > >> @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): > >> # revision we try to pull (None is "all") > >> self.heads = heads > >> # bookmark pulled explicitly > >> - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks > >> + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) > >> + for bookmark in bookmarks] > > > > I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent that > > pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts? > > To add from a previous mail about this, I think we should expand '.' in > the bookmark class (or util) and permanently reserve '.' from all > namespaces. Are there any corner-cases to think about here? I feel like saying it sounds nice, but actually I don't get it. The bookmark class isn't involved to process the explicitbookmarks in updatefromremote().
> > I feel like saying it sounds nice, but actually I don't get it. The > bookmark > class isn't involved to process the explicitbookmarks in > updatefromremote(). I think it could be done by supporting '.' in all functions in bookmark module - including updatefromremote function which was used here and bmstore not used in this case. 2016-06-21 14:34 GMT+02:00 Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org>: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:15:30 -0700, Sean Farley wrote: > > >> +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py > > >> @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): > > >> # revision we try to pull (None is "all") > > >> self.heads = heads > > >> # bookmark pulled explicitly > > >> - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks > > >> + self.explicitbookmarks = > [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) > > >> + for bookmark in bookmarks] > > > > > > I have no idea where '.' should be expanded, but it seems inconsistent > that > > > pulloperation keeps expanded names but pushoperation doesn't. Thoughts? > > > > To add from a previous mail about this, I think we should expand '.' in > > the bookmark class (or util) and permanently reserve '.' from all > > namespaces. Are there any corner-cases to think about here? > > I feel like saying it sounds nice, but actually I don't get it. The > bookmark > class isn't involved to process the explicitbookmarks in > updatefromremote(). >
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:48:09 +0200, Piotr Listkiewicz wrote: > > I feel like saying it sounds nice, but actually I don't get it. The > > bookmark > > class isn't involved to process the explicitbookmarks in > > updatefromremote(). > > I think it could be done by supporting '.' in all functions in bookmark > module - including updatefromremote function which was used here and > bmstore not used in this case. IMHO, if we don't have clear boundary between '.' and <real-bookmark>, we would face a bunch of bugs related to the '.' bookmark.
> > IMHO, if we don't have clear boundary between '.' and <real-bookmark>, we > would face a bunch of bugs related to the '.' bookmark. Totally agree but i have no idea how to make a clear boundary between them. Expanding name in all functions in bookmark module would definetely be error prone. 2016-06-21 16:04 GMT+02:00 Yuya Nishihara <yuya@tcha.org>: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:48:09 +0200, Piotr Listkiewicz wrote: > > > I feel like saying it sounds nice, but actually I don't get it. The > > > bookmark > > > class isn't involved to process the explicitbookmarks in > > > updatefromremote(). > > > > I think it could be done by supporting '.' in all functions in bookmark > > module - including updatefromremote function which was used here and > > bmstore not used in this case. > > IMHO, if we don't have clear boundary between '.' and <real-bookmark>, we > would face a bunch of bugs related to the '.' bookmark. >
Patch
diff --git a/mercurial/commands.py b/mercurial/commands.py --- a/mercurial/commands.py +++ b/mercurial/commands.py @@ -5805,6 +5805,7 @@ def pull(ui, repo, source="default", **o remotebookmarks = other.listkeys('bookmarks') pullopargs['remotebookmarks'] = remotebookmarks for b in opts['bookmark']: + b = repo._bookmarks.expandname(b) if b not in remotebookmarks: raise error.Abort(_('remote bookmark %s not found!') % b) revs.append(remotebookmarks[b]) diff --git a/mercurial/exchange.py b/mercurial/exchange.py --- a/mercurial/exchange.py +++ b/mercurial/exchange.py @@ -1056,7 +1056,8 @@ class pulloperation(object): # revision we try to pull (None is "all") self.heads = heads # bookmark pulled explicitly - self.explicitbookmarks = bookmarks + self.explicitbookmarks = [repo._bookmarks.expandname(bookmark) + for bookmark in bookmarks] # do we force pull? self.force = force # whether a streaming clone was requested diff --git a/tests/test-bookmarks-pushpull.t b/tests/test-bookmarks-pushpull.t --- a/tests/test-bookmarks-pushpull.t +++ b/tests/test-bookmarks-pushpull.t @@ -252,7 +252,10 @@ divergent bookmarks explicit pull should overwrite the local version (issue4439) - $ hg pull --config paths.foo=../a foo -B X + $ hg update -r X + 0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved + (activating bookmark X) + $ hg pull --config paths.foo=../a foo -B . pulling from $TESTTMP/a (glob) no changes found divergent bookmark @ stored as @foo @@ -366,7 +369,10 @@ Update a bookmark right after the initia X 1:0d2164f0ce0d * Y 5:35d1ef0a8d1b Z 1:0d2164f0ce0d - $ hg pull -B Y + $ hg update -r Y + 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 1 files removed, 0 files unresolved + (activating bookmark Y) + $ hg pull -B . pulling from http://localhost:$HGPORT/ searching for changes adding changesets @@ -376,9 +382,9 @@ Update a bookmark right after the initia updating bookmark Y (run 'hg update' to get a working copy) $ hg book - * @ 1:0d2164f0ce0d + @ 1:0d2164f0ce0d X 1:0d2164f0ce0d - Y 5:35d1ef0a8d1b + * Y 5:35d1ef0a8d1b Z 1:0d2164f0ce0d (done with this section of the test)