If we use the normal vfs, store encoding will be applied when we
.join() the path to be copied. This results in attempting to copy
a file that (likely) doesn't exist. Using the rawvfs operates on
the raw file path, which is returned by vfs.readdir().
Users at Mozilla are encountering this, as I've instructed them to
run `hg debugupgraderepo` to upgrade to generaldelta. While Mercurial
shouldn't deposit any files under .hg/store that require encoding, it
is possible for e.g. .DS_Store files to be created by the operating
system.
`hg debugupgraderepo` is currently buggy with regards to path
handling when copying files in .hg/store/. Specifically, it applies
the store filename encoding to paths instead of operating on raw
files.
This commit adds a test demonstrating the buggy behavior.
Since we did a directory rename on the stores, the source
repository's lock path now references the dest repository's
lock path and the dest repository's lock path now references
a non-existent filename.
So releasing the lock on the source will unlock the dest and
releasing the lock on the dest will no-op because it fails due
to file not found. So we clean up the dest's lock manually.
The store contains more than just revlogs. This patch teaches the
upgrade code to copy regular files as well.
As the test changes demonstrate, the phaseroots file is now copied.
Our next step for in-place upgrade is to migrate store data. Revlogs
are the biggest source of data within the store and a store is useless
without them, so we implement their migration first.
Our strategy for migrating revlogs is to walk the store and call
`revlog.clone()` on each revlog. There are some minor complications.
Because revlogs have different storage options (e.g. changelog has
generaldelta and delta chains disabled), we need to obtain the
correct class of revlog so inserted data is encoded properly for its
type.
Various attempts at implementing progress indicators that didn't lead
to frustration from false "it's almost done" indicators were made.
I initially used a single progress bar based on number of revlogs.
However, this quickly churned through all filelogs, got to 99% then
effectively froze at 99.99% when it got to the manifest.
So I converted the progress bar to total revision count. This was a
little bit better. But the manifest was still significantly slower
than filelogs and it took forever to process the last few percent.
I then tried both revision/chunk bytes and raw bytes as the
denominator. This had the opposite effect: because so much data is in
manifests, it would churn through filelogs without showing much
progress. When it got to manifests, it would fill in 90+% of the
progress bar.
I finally gave up having a unified progress bar and instead implemented
3 progress bars: 1 for filelog revisions, 1 for manifest revisions, and
1 for changelog revisions. I added extra messages indicating the total
number of revisions of each so users know there are more progress bars
coming.
I also added extra messages before and after each stage to give extra
details about what is happening. Strictly speaking, this isn't
necessary. But the numbers are impressive. For example, when converting
a non-generaldelta mozilla-central repository, the messages you see are:
migrating 2475593 total revisions (1833043 in filelogs, 321156 in manifests, 321394 in changelog)
migrating 1.67 GB in store; 2508 GB tracked data
migrating 267868 filelogs containing 1833043 revisions (1.09 GB in store; 57.3 GB tracked data)
finished migrating 1833043 filelog revisions across 267868 filelogs; change in size: -415776 bytes
migrating 1 manifests containing 321156 revisions (518 MB in store; 2451 GB tracked data)
That "2508 GB" figure really blew me away. I had no clue that the raw
tracked data in mozilla-central was that large. Granted, 2451 GB is in
the manifest and "only" 57.3 GB is in filelogs. But still.
It's worth noting that gratuitous loading of source revlogs in order
to display numbers and progress bars does serve a purpose: it ensures
we can open all source revlogs. We don't want to spend several minutes
copying revlogs only to encounter a permissions error or similar later.
As part of this commit, we also add swapping of the store directory
to the upgrade function. After revlogs are converted, we move the
old store into the backup directory then move the temporary repo's
store into the old store's location. On well-behaved systems, this
should be 2 atomic operations and the window of inconsistency show be
very narrow.
There are still a few improvements to be made to store copying and
upgrading. But this commit gets the bulk of the work out of the way.
Now that all the upgrade planning work is in place, we can start
doing the real work: actually upgrading a repository.
The main goal of this commit is to get the "framework" for running
in-place upgrade actions in place.
Rather than get too clever and low-level with regards to in-place
upgrades, our strategy is to create a new, temporary repository,
copy data to it, then replace the old data with the new. This allows
us to reuse a lot of code in localrepo.py around store interaction,
which will eventually consume the bulk of the upgrade code.
But we have to start small. This patch implements adding new
repository requirements. But it still sets up a temporary
repository and locks it and the source repo before performing the
requirements file swap. This means all the plumbing is in place
to implement store copying in subsequent commits.
This commit introduces code for determining what actions/improvements
an upgrade should perform.
The "upgradefindimprovements" function introduces a mechanism to
return a list of improvements that can be made to a repository.
Each improvement is effectively an action that an upgrade will
perform. Associated with each of these improvements is metadata
that will be used to inform users what's wrong and what an
upgrade will do.
Each "improvement" is categorized as a "deficiency" or an
"optimization." TBH, I'm not thrilled about the terminology and
am receptive to constructive bikeshedding. The main difference
between a "deficiency" and an "optimization" is a deficiency
is always corrected (if it deviates from the current config) and
an "optimization" is an optional action that goes above and beyond
to improve the state of the repository (usually by requiring more
CPU during upgrade).
Our initial set of improvements identifies missing repository
requirements, a single, easily correctable problem with
changelog storage, and a set of "optimizations" related to delta
recalculation.
The main "upgraderepo" function has been expanded to handle
improvements. It queries for the list of improvements and determines
which of them will run based on the current repository state and user
I went through numerous iterations of the output format before
settling on a ReST-inspired definition list format. (I used
bulleted lists in the first submission of this commit and could
not get it to format just right.) Even with the various iterations,
I'm still not super thrilled with the format. But, this is a debug*
command, so that should mean we can refine the output without BC
concerns.
This commit introduces functionality for upgrading a repository in
place. The first part that's implemented is testing for upgrade
"compatibility." This is done by examining repository requirements.
There are 5 functions returning sets of requirements that control
upgrading. Why so many functions? Mainly to support extensions.
Functions are easier to monkeypatch than module variables.
Astute readers will see that we don't support "manifestv2" and
"treemanifest" requirements in the upgrade mechanism. I don't have
a great answer for why other than this is a complex set of patches
and I don't want to deal with the complexity of these experimental
features just yet. We can teach the upgrade mechanism about them
later, once the basic upgrade mechanism is in place.
This commit also introduces the "upgraderepo" function. This will be
our main routine for performing an in-place upgrade. Currently, it
just implements requirements checking. The structure of some code in
this function may look a bit weird (e.g. the inline function that is
only called once). But this will make sense after future commits.
Currently, if Mercurial introduces a new repository/store feature or
changes behavior of an existing feature, users must perform an
`hg clone` to create a new repository with hopefully the
correct/optimal settings. Unfortunately, even `hg clone` may not
give the correct results. For example, if you do a local `hg clone`,
you may get hardlinks to revlog files that inherit the old state.
If you `hg clone` from a remote or `hg clone --pull`, changegroup
application may bypass some optimization, such as converting to
generaldelta.
Optimizing a repository is harder than it seems and requires more
than a simple `hg` command invocation.
This commit starts the process of changing that. We introduce
`hg debugupgraderepo`, a command that performs an in-place upgrade
of a repository to use new, optimal features. The command is just
a stub right now. Features will be added in subsequent commits.
This commit does foreshadow some of the behavior of the new command,
notably that it doesn't do anything by default and that it takes
arguments that influence what actions it performs. These will be
explained more in subsequent commits.
