[MERGE][BUG #233817] Missing shows merged revisions with --include-merges
v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr
Fri Sep 12 10:36:59 BST 2008
>>>>> "john" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
john> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>>> "john" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
john> So the primary issue is that (as of yet) we can't do
john> dotted revno numbering without accessing the full
john> revision graph. And your work here:
john> ^- Will give wrong numbers for anything resembling
john> complex history. I can give specific graphs that it
john> will break, or you can just trust me. :)
>> Trusting you, I propose this patch.
john> I'm a bit concerned about this line:
john> - for revno, rev_id in revisions:
john> + for rev in revisions:
john> + # We need the following for backward compatibilty (hopefully
john> + # this will be deprecated soon :-/) -- vila 080911
john> + if len(rev) == 2:
john> + revno, rev_id = rev
john> + merge_depth = 0
john> + else:
john> + revno, rev_id, merge_depth = rev
john> I really don't like sometimes passing in 2 values and sometimes passing
john> in 3. Is there something we can do better here?
Yes. Two possible solutions:
1) Always pass 3 values.
2) Rework the whole thing to use LogRevision objects (since this
is where we take care of the problem *today*).
I did try (1) put it required updating tests and breaking
backward compatibility. As I intend to do (2), I punted.
john> - mainline.append((cur_revno, cur))
john> + mainline.append((str(cur_revno), cur))
john> ^- Since you are changing the signature, what about setting
john> "merge_depth=0" here for all mainline revisions. So something like:
This was a drive-by fix, doing (2) will get rid of it.
john> mainline.append((str(cur_revno), cur, 0))
john> + def test_include_merges(self):
john> + tree = self.make_branch_and_tree('tree')
john> + rev1 = tree.commit('one', rev_id='rev1')
john> ^- It would be nice to use the "BranchBuilder" api for this. Just as a
john> way to encourage new tests to be written without hitting disk unless
john> they are testing that portion of code.
Hmm, what I need here is the ability to create a branch from
another existing one and then merge. This is not (yet?) provided
by branch_builder and adding that is outside the scope of a tweak
I think. I filed https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/269319.
john> + self.assertUnmerged(, [('2', 'rev2', 0), ('3', 'rev3',0 ),
john> + ('4', 'rev6', 0),
john> + ('3.1.1', 'rev4', 1), ('3.1.2',
john> 'rev5', 1),
john> + ],
john> ^- Just a quick check that we are sure this order is correct.
john> Also, you don't have a check if we set "backward=True".
On the other hand, if you look at that patch history, you will
notice quite a few errors encountered before getting the
'backward' right :) So I can guarantee that if anybody mess with
that, they will notice quickly.
But I'll add tests anyway.
More information about the bazaar