Page MenuHomePhabricator

kulshrax (Arun Kulshreshtha)
User

Projects

User does not belong to any projects.

User Details

User Since
Jun 28 2017, 5:55 PM (255 w, 2 d)

Recent Activity

Oct 17 2017

kulshrax added a comment to D1139: restack: use multidest rebase to implement restack.

Also, are you going to modify hg next --rebase to use this new restack functionality? Presently it just calls _restackonce() (which itself is not ideal for that case since it rebases all of the children at each level of the stack rather than just the one on the path to the destination).

Oct 17 2017, 4:00 PM
kulshrax added a comment to D1139: restack: use multidest rebase to implement restack.

Does this mean that the entire restack will continue after a merge conflict with hg rebase --continue? (Since the entire thing is just a single rebase call now.) If so, that's really great.

Oct 17 2017, 3:44 PM

Jul 21 2017

kulshrax accepted D163: test-restack: add a case demonstrating restack rebase a single commit twice.
Jul 21 2017, 1:14 AM

Jul 20 2017

kulshrax accepted D161: split: check unfinished first.
Jul 20 2017, 9:19 PM

Jul 19 2017

kulshrax closed D140: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next by committing rFBHGXfbbcb5c6a1fb: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next.
Jul 19 2017, 10:09 AM
kulshrax committed rFBHGXfbbcb5c6a1fb: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next.
fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next
Jul 19 2017, 10:09 AM

Jul 18 2017

kulshrax added a comment to D140: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next.

I'm seeing a unit test failure I don't understand in test-check-config-hg.t. Any idea what's going on?

Jul 18 2017, 9:31 PM
kulshrax updated the test plan for D140: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next.
Jul 18 2017, 9:28 PM
kulshrax added a reviewer for D140: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next: quark.
Jul 18 2017, 9:25 PM
kulshrax created D140: fbamend: add --clean flag to hg prev/next.
Jul 18 2017, 9:25 PM
kulshrax accepted D139: hiddenoverride: avoid race condition updating the state file.

I'm going to accept this since this is blocking our internal release, but there are some portability concerns here since POSIX advisory locking isn't available on Windows, for example. That should probably be addressed in a separate patch. It might be worth making note of this as a comment in the code?

Jul 18 2017, 7:02 PM