nodemap: gate the feature behind a new requirement Now that the feature is working smoothly, a question was still open, should we gate the feature behind a new requirement or just treat it as a cache to be warmed by those who can and ignored by other. The advantage of using the cache approach is a transparent upgrade/downgrade story, making the feature easier to move to. However having out of date cache can come with a significant performance hit for process who expect an up to date cache but found none. In this case the file needs to be stored under `.hg/cache`. The "requirement" approach guarantee that the persistent nodemap is up to date. However, it comes with a less flexible activation story since an explicite upgrade is required. In this case the file can be stored in `.hg/store`. This wiki page is relevant to this questions: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ComputedIndexPlan So which one should we take? Another element came into plan, the persistent nodemap use the `add` method of the transaction, it is used to keep track of a file content before a transaction in case we need to rollback it back. It turns out that the `transaction.add` API does not support file stored anywhere than `.hg/store`. Making it support file stored elsewhere is possible, require a change in on disk transaction format. Updating on disk file requires… introducing a new requirements. As a result, we pick the second option "gating the persistent nodemap behind a new requirements". Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8417

     1

# Files that just need to be migrated to the formatter.

     2

# Do not add new files here!

     3

mercurial/cext/manifest.c

     4

mercurial/cext/osutil.c

     5

# Vendored code that we should never format:

     6

syntax: glob

     7

contrib/python-zstandard/**.c

     8

contrib/python-zstandard/**.h

     9

hgext/fsmonitor/pywatchman/**.c

    10

mercurial/thirdparty/**.c

    11

mercurial/thirdparty/**.h