Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:58:33 -0300 i18n-pt_BR: synchronized with 6783f47d90dd stable
Wagner Bruna <wbruna@softwareexpress.com.br> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:58:33 -0300] rev 13739
i18n-pt_BR: synchronized with 6783f47d90dd
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:57:10 -0300 merge with i18n stable
Wagner Bruna <wbruna@softwareexpress.com.br> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:57:10 -0300] rev 13738
merge with i18n
Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:48:17 +0100 i18n-it: synchronized with adf3c4401c5d stable
Stefano Tortarolo <stefano.tortarolo@gmail.com> [Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:48:17 +0100] rev 13737
i18n-it: synchronized with adf3c4401c5d
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:41:58 -0500 osutil: fix up check-code issues
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:41:58 -0500] rev 13736
osutil: fix up check-code issues
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:34:22 -0500 dirstate: flush _lastnormal when we see newer filesystem times
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:34:22 -0500] rev 13735
dirstate: flush _lastnormal when we see newer filesystem times
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:43:34 +0100 util: add Mac-specific check whether we're in a GUI session (issue2553)
Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen <danchr@gmail.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:43:34 +0100] rev 13734
util: add Mac-specific check whether we're in a GUI session (issue2553) The previous test assumed that 'os.name' was "mac" on Mac OS X. This is not the case; 'mac' was classic Mac OS, whereas Mac OS X has 'os.name' be 'posix'. Please note that this change will break Mercurial on hypothetical non-Mac OS X deployments of Darwin. Credit to Brodie Rao for thinking of CGSessionCopyCurrentDictionary() and Kevin Bullock for testing.
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:14:43 +0100 rebase: allow for rebasing descendants onto ancestors on different named branches
Stefano Tortarolo <stefano.tortarolo@gmail.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 01:14:43 +0100] rev 13733
rebase: allow for rebasing descendants onto ancestors on different named branches So far we've been denying rebasing descendants onto ancestors, but there are situations in which this kind of operation makes perfect sense to me. Let's say we have made a commit (or more), that belongs to branch 'dev', on top of the named branch 'stable': ... a (stable) - b (dev) but then we realize that b should belong to branch 'stable'. In these cases a rebase means: "move these csets from named branch A to named branch B" and there isn't a valid reason to deny it. This patch basically doesn't block it, if source and destination are on different named branches. The old behaviour still applies for rebases across the same named branch. Can you think of any tricky corner cases in which this new behaviour could lead to problems? (I bet there are tons of them...) By the way, I created a brand new .t because I feel there should be more tests I can't think of at the moment.
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:24 +0100 bdiff.c: rename all variables which hold a hash value to "hash"
Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer <markus@oberhumer.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:24 +0100] rev 13732
bdiff.c: rename all variables which hold a hash value to "hash"
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:23 +0100 bdiff.c: use unsigned arithmetic for hash computation
Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer <markus@oberhumer.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:23 +0100] rev 13731
bdiff.c: use unsigned arithmetic for hash computation Signed integer overflow is undefined in C.
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:22 +0100 bdiff.c: cast to unsigned char when computing hash value
Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer <markus@oberhumer.com> [Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:33:22 +0100] rev 13730
bdiff.c: cast to unsigned char when computing hash value
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip