( )⚙ D7591 status: remove pointless filtering by alwaysmatcher in morestatus

This is an archive of the discontinued Mercurial Phabricator instance.

Differential D7591

status: remove pointless filtering by alwaysmatcher in morestatus
ClosedPublic

Authored by martinvonz on Dec 9 2019, 12:50 PM.

Details

Reviewers
pulkit
Group Reviewers
hg-reviewers
Commits
rHG072b745936f1: status: remove pointless filtering by alwaysmatcher in morestatus
Summary

The code has been like this since it was imported from FB's
hg-experimental repo. It has been like that even since it was added in
that repo. So I don't know why it looks that way. Perhaps the idea was
to one day filter the unresolved paths by any patterns provided by the
user. We can add a matcher back if we ever decide to do that.

Diff Detail

Repository
rHG Mercurial
Branch
default
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage

Event Timeline

martinvonz created this revision.Dec 9 2019, 12:50 PM
rdamazio added a subscriber: rdamazio.Dec 10 2019, 12:33 AM

FYI I'm going to send a chain that rewrites a lot of this

martinvonz added a comment.Dec 10 2019, 12:39 AM
In D7591#111569, @rdamazio wrote:

FYI I'm going to send a chain that rewrites a lot of this

To be clear, are you telling reviewers not to queue this one because you will be rewriting the *patch* or you're saying that you will later be sending patches on top of this one?

rdamazio added a comment.Dec 10 2019, 12:56 AM
In D7591#111570, @martinvonz wrote:
In D7591#111569, @rdamazio wrote:

FYI I'm going to send a chain that rewrites a lot of this

To be clear, are you telling reviewers not to queue this one because you will be rewriting the *patch* or you're saying that you will later be sending patches on top of this one?

I'm writing a larger change which includes this change, I don't mind merging the conflict if you want to go ahead and queue this.

martinvonz added a comment.Dec 10 2019, 12:59 AM
In D7591#111571, @rdamazio wrote:
In D7591#111570, @martinvonz wrote:
In D7591#111569, @rdamazio wrote:

FYI I'm going to send a chain that rewrites a lot of this

To be clear, are you telling reviewers not to queue this one because you will be rewriting the *patch* or you're saying that you will later be sending patches on top of this one?

I'm writing a larger change which includes this change, I don't mind merging the conflict if you want to go ahead and queue this.

Okay, I think it makes sense to queue this one if it's just a subset of you changes.

pulkit accepted this revision.Dec 10 2019, 10:01 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Dec 10 2019, 10:01 AM

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathPackages
Mmercurial/cmdutil.py (5 lines)

Diff 18558

mercurial/cmdutil.py

return b'\n'.join(commentedlines) + b'\n' return b'\n'.join(commentedlines) + b'\n'
def _conflictsmsg(repo): def _conflictsmsg(repo):
mergestate = mergemod.mergestate.read(repo) mergestate = mergemod.mergestate.read(repo)
if not mergestate.active(): if not mergestate.active():
return return
m = scmutil.match(repo[None]) unresolvedlist = sorted(mergestate.unresolved())
unresolvedlist = [f for f in mergestate.unresolved() if m(f)]
if unresolvedlist: if unresolvedlist:
mergeliststr = b'\n'.join( mergeliststr = b'\n'.join(
[ [
b' %s' % util.pathto(repo.root, encoding.getcwd(), path) b' %s' % util.pathto(repo.root, encoding.getcwd(), path)
for path in sorted(unresolvedlist) for path in unresolvedlist
] ]
) )
msg = ( msg = (
_( _(
'''Unresolved merge conflicts: '''Unresolved merge conflicts:
%s %s