Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:58 -0500 rebase: improve error message for empty --source set
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:58 -0500] rev 20248
rebase: improve error message for empty --source set Before, it just said 'nothing to rebase' in this case. Now, it aborts mentioning the reason: 'empty "source" revision set'. Specifying revisions that cannot be rebased is a 'soft' error, but specifying an empty set deserves an abort that explains exactly what the problem is.
Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500 rebase: improve error message for empty --rev set
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:29 -0500] rev 20247
rebase: improve error message for empty --rev set Before, it just said 'nothing to rebase' in this case. Now, it aborts mentioning the reason: 'empty "rev" revision set'. Specifying revisions that cannot be rebased is a 'soft' error, but specifying an empty set deserves an abort that explains exactly what the problem is.
Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:58 -0500 rebase: test for empty dest revision
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:21:58 -0500] rev 20246
rebase: test for empty dest revision
Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:17:18 -0500 help: branch names primarily denote the tipmost unclosed branch head
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:17:18 -0500] rev 20245
help: branch names primarily denote the tipmost unclosed branch head Was the behavior correct and the description wrong so it should be updated as in this patch? Or should the code work as the documentation says? Both ways could make some sense ... but none of them are obvious in all cases. One place where it currently cause problems is when the current revision has another branch head that is closer to tip but closed. 'hg rebase' refuses to rebase to that as it only see the tip-most unclosed branch head which is the current revision. /me kind of likes named branches, but no so much how branch closing works ...
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:28:21 +0100 util: introduce util.debugstacktrace for showing a stack trace without crashing
Mads Kiilerich <madski@unity3d.com> [Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:28:21 +0100] rev 20244
util: introduce util.debugstacktrace for showing a stack trace without crashing This is often very handy when hacking/debugging. Calling util.debugstacktrace('hey') from a place in hg will give something like: hey at: ./hg:38 in <module> /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:28 in run /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:65 in dispatch /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:88 in _runcatch /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:740 in _dispatch /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:514 in runcommand /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:830 in _runcommand /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:801 in checkargs /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/dispatch.py:737 in <lambda> /home/user/hgsrc/mercurial/util.py:472 in check ...
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:57 +0100 check-code: print debug output when an ignore pattern matches
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:57 +0100] rev 20243
check-code: print debug output when an ignore pattern matches
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:51 +0100 check-code: drop now unused check-code-ignore
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:51 +0100] rev 20242
check-code: drop now unused check-code-ignore Using check-code-ignore to skip the failures on a line has several disadvantages: * It skips all check-code failures on a line, not only the one it was created for. * It does not give any hint for which rule it was added, making it difficult to see when it is not needed anymore. So drop this pragma in favor of better alternatives promoted before.
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:44 +0100 check-code: explain what to do when a check-code rule mismatches
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:44 +0100] rev 20241
check-code: explain what to do when a check-code rule mismatches In the past several approaches were used when a check-code rule triggered without a good reason. Not all of them looked nice, some were even wrong. Suggest some good practices which should be used instead.
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:39 +0100 cleanup: Remove the only ever used skip-check-code pragma
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:39 +0100] rev 20240
cleanup: Remove the only ever used skip-check-code pragma Use the work-around suggested by the rule instead
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:15 +0100 check-code: always report when a file is skipped by "no-check-code"
Simon Heimberg <simohe@besonet.ch> [Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:29:15 +0100] rev 20239
check-code: always report when a file is skipped by "no-check-code" Skipping an entire file generally from checking is an important event, so report it always. Do not tell the check name because skipping does not depend on it. Directly skip the entire file instead of checking more patterns and skip again. The pragma no-check-code was introduced by accident in the past. (Fixed in e033a7d444ac and ee07f9d142c9.) This now is prevented because the files to skip have to be listed in the test output of test-check-code-hg.t.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip