##// END OF EJS Templates
exchangev2: fetch file revisions...
exchangev2: fetch file revisions Now that the server has an API for fetching file data, we can call into it to fetch file revisions. The implementation is relatively straightforward: we examine the manifests that we fetched and find all new file revisions referenced by them. We build up a mapping from file path to file nodes to manifest node. (The mapping to first manifest node allows us to map back to first changelog node/revision, which is used for the linkrev.) Once that map is built up, we iterate over it in a deterministic manner and fetch and store file data. The code is very similar to manifest fetching. So similar that we could probably extract the common bits into a generic function. With file data retrieval implemented, `hg clone` and `hg pull` are effectively feature complete, at least as far as the completeness of data transfer for essential repository data (changesets, manifests, files, phases, and bookmarks). We're still missing support for obsolescence markers, the hgtags fnodes cache, and the branchmap cache. But these are non-essential for the moment (and will be implemented later). This is a good point to assess the state of exchangev2 in terms of performance. I ran a local `hg clone` for the mozilla-unified repository using both version 1 and version 2 of the wire protocols and exchange methods. This is effectively comparing the performance of the wire protocol overhead and "getbundle" versus domain-specific commands. Wire protocol version 2 doesn't have compression implemented yet. So I tested version 1 with `server.compressionengines=none` to remove compression overhead from the equation. server before: user 220.420+0.000 sys 14.420+0.000 after: user 321.980+0.000 sys 18.990+0.000 client before: real 561.650 secs (user 497.670+0.000 sys 28.160+0.000) after: real 1226.260 secs (user 944.240+0.000 sys 354.150+0.000) We have substantial regressions on both client and server. This is obviously not desirable. I'm aware of some reasons: * Lack of hgtagsfnodes transfer (contributes significant CPU to client). * Lack of branch cache transfer (contributes significant CPU to client). * Little to no profiling / optimization performed on wire protocol version 2 code. * There appears to be a memory leak on the client and that is likely causing swapping on my machine. * Using multiple threads on the client may be counter-productive because Python. * We're not compressing on the server. * We're tracking file nodes on the client via manifest diffing rather than using linkrev shortcuts on the server. I'm pretty confident that most of these issues are addressable. But even if we can't get wire protocol version 2 on performance parity with "getbundle," I still think it is important to have the set of low level data-specific retrieval commands that we have implemented so far. This is because the existence of such commands allows flexibility in how clients access server data. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4491

File last commit:

r39304:0dfcc348 default
r39676:039bf1ed default
Show More
merge-tools.txt
109 lines | 4.4 KiB | text/plain | TextLexer
To merge files Mercurial uses merge tools.
A merge tool combines two different versions of a file into a merged
file. Merge tools are given the two files and the greatest common
ancestor of the two file versions, so they can determine the changes
made on both branches.
Merge tools are used both for :hg:`resolve`, :hg:`merge`, :hg:`update`,
:hg:`backout` and in several extensions.
Usually, the merge tool tries to automatically reconcile the files by
combining all non-overlapping changes that occurred separately in
the two different evolutions of the same initial base file. Furthermore, some
interactive merge programs make it easier to manually resolve
conflicting merges, either in a graphical way, or by inserting some
conflict markers. Mercurial does not include any interactive merge
programs but relies on external tools for that.
Available merge tools
=====================
External merge tools and their properties are configured in the
merge-tools configuration section - see hgrc(5) - but they can often just
be named by their executable.
A merge tool is generally usable if its executable can be found on the
system and if it can handle the merge. The executable is found if it
is an absolute or relative executable path or the name of an
application in the executable search path. The tool is assumed to be
able to handle the merge if it can handle symlinks if the file is a
symlink, if it can handle binary files if the file is binary, and if a
GUI is available if the tool requires a GUI.
There are some internal merge tools which can be used. The internal
merge tools are:
.. internaltoolsmarker
Internal tools are always available and do not require a GUI but will
by default not handle symlinks or binary files. See next section for
detail about "actual capabilities" described above.
Choosing a merge tool
=====================
Mercurial uses these rules when deciding which merge tool to use:
1. If a tool has been specified with the --tool option to merge or resolve, it
is used. If it is the name of a tool in the merge-tools configuration, its
configuration is used. Otherwise the specified tool must be executable by
the shell.
2. If the ``HGMERGE`` environment variable is present, its value is used and
must be executable by the shell.
3. If the filename of the file to be merged matches any of the patterns in the
merge-patterns configuration section, the first usable merge tool
corresponding to a matching pattern is used.
4. If ui.merge is set it will be considered next. If the value is not the name
of a configured tool, the specified value is used and must be executable by
the shell. Otherwise the named tool is used if it is usable.
5. If any usable merge tools are present in the merge-tools configuration
section, the one with the highest priority is used.
6. If a program named ``hgmerge`` can be found on the system, it is used - but
it will by default not be used for symlinks and binary files.
7. If the file to be merged is not binary and is not a symlink, then
internal ``:merge`` is used.
8. Otherwise, ``:prompt`` is used.
For historical reason, Mercurial treats merge tools as below while
examining rules above.
==== =============== ====== =======
step specified via binary symlink
==== =============== ====== =======
1. --tool o/o o/o
2. HGMERGE o/o o/o
3. merge-patterns o/o(*) x/?(*)
4. ui.merge x/?(*) x/?(*)
==== =============== ====== =======
Each capability column indicates Mercurial behavior for
internal/external merge tools at examining each rule.
- "o": "assume that a tool has capability"
- "x": "assume that a tool does not have capability"
- "?": "check actual capability of a tool"
If ``merge.strict-capability-check`` configuration is true, Mercurial
checks capabilities of merge tools strictly in (*) cases above (= each
capability column becomes "?/?"). It is false by default for backward
compatibility.
.. note::
After selecting a merge program, Mercurial will by default attempt
to merge the files using a simple merge algorithm first. Only if it doesn't
succeed because of conflicting changes will Mercurial actually execute the
merge program. Whether to use the simple merge algorithm first can be
controlled by the premerge setting of the merge tool. Premerge is enabled by
default unless the file is binary or a symlink.
See the merge-tools and ui sections of hgrc(5) for details on the
configuration of merge tools.