| Submitter | Pierre-Yves David |
|---|---|
| Date | Dec. 28, 2012, 12:56 a.m. |
| Message ID | <13d786f9f076697469cb.1356656179@yamac.lan> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/309/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c351759ab0a07dcd92d6312ab0a02e5bfaafde4a |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > On 26 d?c. 2012, at 23:25, Dave S wrote: >> "build a cache [...] and then return the hash of the cache to use when ..." >> >> My current thinking, such as it is, is that being explicit about the >> relationship of the hash to the cache is valuable. > > You got me totally confused here :-( > > Whats wrong? what do you suggest as an alternative ? That was my alternative, but I'm satisfied with your taking Kevin's suggestion. There is still a small concern about "distinct", as I previously mentioned. Do you mean "distinguish" (verb) or "distinct signature" (noun) ? /dps
On Dec 28, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Dave S <snidely.too at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Pierre-Yves David > <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote: >> >> On 26 d?c. 2012, at 23:25, Dave S wrote: > >>> "build a cache [...] and then return the hash of the cache to use when ..." >>> >>> My current thinking, such as it is, is that being explicit about the >>> relationship of the hash to the cache is valuable. >> >> You got me totally confused here :-( >> >> Whats wrong? what do you suggest as an alternative ? > > That was my alternative, but I'm satisfied with your taking Kevin's > suggestion. > > There is still a small concern about "distinct", as I previously > mentioned. Do you mean "distinguish" (verb) or "distinct signature" > (noun) ? I'm going to stop reviewing this series here, since my MUA is totally failing to thread this and I can't find the conversation with Kevin. Pierre-Yves, can you resend patches 4:tip of this series when you're ready for re-review? AF > > /dps > > -- > test signature -- please apply at front gate on Tuesdays only.
On 1 janv. 2013, at 00:41, Augie Fackler wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Dave S <snidely.too at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Pierre-Yves David >> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 26 d?c. 2012, at 23:25, Dave S wrote: >> >>>> "build a cache [...] and then return the hash of the cache to use when ..." >>>> >>>> My current thinking, such as it is, is that being explicit about the >>>> relationship of the hash to the cache is valuable. >>> >>> You got me totally confused here :-( >>> >>> Whats wrong? what do you suggest as an alternative ? >> >> That was my alternative, but I'm satisfied with your taking Kevin's >> suggestion. >> >> There is still a small concern about "distinct", as I previously >> mentioned. Do you mean "distinguish" (verb) or "distinct signature" >> (noun) ? > > I'm going to stop reviewing this series here, since my MUA is totally failing to thread this and I can't find the conversation with Kevin. Pierre-Yves, can you resend patches 4:tip of this series when you're ready for re-review? V2 is the resend ready for re-review. Dave S feedback have been resolved as far I understand it. Thanks for looking at it. This series if on the critical path for filtering
Patch
diff --git a/mercurial/branchmap.py b/mercurial/branchmap.py --- a/mercurial/branchmap.py +++ b/mercurial/branchmap.py @@ -5,10 +5,11 @@ # This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of the # GNU General Public License version 2 or any later version. from node import bin, hex, nullid, nullrev import encoding +import util def read(repo): try: f = repo.opener("cache/branchheads") lines = f.read().split('\n') @@ -67,22 +68,45 @@ def updatecache(repo): repo._branchcache = partial class branchcache(dict): """A dict like object that hold branches heads cache""" - def __init__(self, entries=(), tipnode=nullid, tiprev=nullrev): + def __init__(self, entries=(), tipnode=nullid, tiprev=nullrev, + filteredhash=None): super(branchcache, self).__init__(entries) self.tipnode = tipnode self.tiprev = tiprev + self.filteredhash = filteredhash + + def _hashfiltered(self, repo): + """build hash of revision filtered in the current cache + + Tracking tipnode and tiprev is not enough to ensure validaty of the + cache as they do not help to distinct cache that ignored various + revision bellow tiprev. + + To detect such difference, we build a cache of all revision ignored.""" + cl = repo.changelog + if not cl.filteredrevs: + return None + key = None + revs = sorted(r for r in cl.filteredrevs if r <= self.tiprev) + if revs: + s = util.sha1() + for rev in revs: + s.update('%s;' % rev) + key = s.digest() + return key def validfor(self, repo): """Is the cache content valide regarding a repo - False when cached tipnode are unknown or if we detect a strip. - True when cache is up to date or a subset of current repo.""" try: - return self.tipnode == repo.changelog.node(self.tiprev) + return ((self.tipnode == repo.changelog.node(self.tiprev)) + and (self.filteredhash == self._hashfiltered(repo))) except IndexError: return False def write(self, repo): @@ -170,5 +194,6 @@ class branchcache(dict): for heads in self.values(): tiprev = max(cl.rev(node) for node in heads) if tiprev > self.tiprev: self.tipnode = cl.node(tiprev) self.tiprev = tiprev + self.filteredhash = self._hashfiltered(repo)