rebase: improve error message for --base being empty or causing emptiness Before it just said 'nothing to rebase'. Now 'if "base" is an empty set: abort: empty "base" revision set - can't compute rebase set If the set of changesets to rebase can't be found from "base", it will fail as before but with more explanation of what the problem was. The name of the "base" option is not obvious - it is more like "samples identifying the branch to rebase". The error messages for problems with the specified "base" value will use that term and might thus also not be obvious, but at least they are consistent with the option name. The name "base" will not be used if the base only was specified implicitly as the working directory parent.

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.

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.

rebase: test for empty dest revision

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 ...

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 ...

check-code: print debug output when an ignore pattern matches

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.

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.

cleanup: Remove the only ever used skip-check-code pragma Use the work-around suggested by the rule instead