Prior to this changeset, rebase always left the working directory as a parent of
the last rebased changeset. The is dubious when, before the rebase, the working
directory was not a parent of the tip most rebased changeset.
With this changeset, we move the working directory back to its original parent.
If the original parent was rebased, we use it's successors.
This is a step toward solving issue3813 (rebase loses active bookmark if it's
not on a head)
In the way to solving issue3813 we'll preserve the working directory parent
after the rebase. Multiple rebases test expect the working directory parent to
be tip after rebase. We patches them before the actual change to prevent
confusion.
With rebase taking multiple roots it is possible to have revision in the "rebase
domain" not rebased themself. We do not want rebased revision above them to be
detached. We want such revision to be rebased on the nearest rebased ancestors.
This allows to preserve the topology of the rebase set as much a possible
To achieve this we introduce a new state `revignored` which informs
`defineparents` of the situation.
The test in `test-rebase-obsolete.t` was actually wrote and his now fixed.
When rebase results in an empty a changeset it is "skipped" and no related
changeset is created at all. When we added obsolescence support to rebase (in
cee0a253a56c) it seemed a good idea to use its parent successor as the
successors for such dropped changesets. (see old version of the altered test).
This option was chosen because it seems a good way to hint about were the
dropped changeset "intended" to be. Such hint would have been used by automatic
evolution mechanism to rebase potential unstable children.
However, field testing of this version are not conclusive. It very often leads
to the creation of (totally unfounded) evolution divergence. This changeset
changes this behavior and mark skipped changesets as pruned (obsolete without
successors). This prevents the issue and seems semantically better probably a
win for obsolescence reading tool.
See example bellow for details:
User Babar has five changesets of interest:
- O, its current base of development.
- U, the new upstream
- A and C, some development changesets
- B another development changeset independent from A
O - A - B - C
\
U
Babar decides that B is more critical than the A and C and rebase it first
$ hg rebase --rev B --dest U
B is now obsolete (in lower case bellow). Rebase result, B', is its
successors.(note, C is unstable)
O - A - b - C
\
U - B'
Babar is now done with B', and want to rebase the rest of its history:
$ hg rebase --source A --dest B'
hg rebase process A, B and C. B is skipped as all its changes are already contained
in B'.
O - U - B' - A' - C'
Babar have the expected result graph wise, obsolescence marker are as follow:
B -> B' (from first rebase)
A -> A' (from second rebase)
C -> C' (from second rebase)
B -> ?? (from second rebase)
Before this changeset, the last marker is `B -> A'`. This cause two issues:
- This is semantically wrong. B have nothing to do with A'
- B has now two successors sets: (B',) and (A',). We detect a divergent
rewriting. The B' and A' are reported as "divergent" to Babar, confusion
ensues. In addition such divergent situation (divergent changeset are children
to each other) is tricky to solve.
With this changeset the last marker is `B -> ø`:
- This is semantically better.
- B has a single successors set (B',)
This scenario is added to the tests suite.
We have all the necessary mechanism to rebase a set with multiple roots, we only
needed a proper handling of this case we preparing and concluding the rebase.
This changeset des that.
Rebase set with multiple root allows some awesome usage of rebase like:
- rebase all your draft on lastest upstream
hg rebase --dest @ --rev 'draft()'
- exclusion of specific changeset during rebase
hg rebase --rev '42:: - author(Babar)'
- rebase a set of revision were multiple roots are later merged
hg rebase --rev '(18+42)::'
The `ui.prevent-unstable` option never made it into core. It always behaves
this way when obsolescence feature is enabled.
See changesets caaf2a66c719, f111507ae88a and 51dfebaadebc for details.
Obsolescence markers can represent this situation just fine. Rebased
revisions are marked as precursors of the ones create by
rebase. Unrebased descendants becomes "unstable".
If obsolescence is not enabled we keep the current behavior of
aborting. This new behavior only applies when obsolete is
enabled and is subject to future discussion and changes.
Here, we exclude hidden changesets from a rebase operation. If we
don't, a rewritten version of the hidden changesets will be created
by rebase. Those rewritten versions won't be hidden and will likely
conflict with other rewriting or revive pruned changeset. Moreover,
rewriting hidden revisions will surprise the user.
This change would not be necessary if changelog filtering were
already in core. But it's fairly cheap and helps to increase the
test-suite for such filtering.
Once changelog level filtering is added, hidden changes will be
automatically excluded or included according to the global --hidden
flags. Plain ignoring them is good enough for now.
In collapse mode, that content of state is not suitable to compute obsolescence
markers. We explicitly pass the resulting revision instead and use it as the
successors for all elements of the rebased set.
When obsolescence feature is enabled we now create markers from the rebased
set to the resulting set instead of stripping. The "state" mapping built by
rebase holds all necessary data.
Changesets "deleted" by the rebase are marked "succeeded" by the changeset they
would be rebased one. That the best guess of "successors" we have. Getting a
successors as meaningful as possible is important for automatic resolution of
obsolescence troubles. In other word, emptied changeset will looks collapsed
with their former parents. (see "empty changeset" section of the test if you are
still confused)
