##// 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:

r34950:ff178743 stable
r39676:039bf1ed default
Show More
phases.txt
100 lines | 3.0 KiB | text/plain | TextLexer
What are phases?
================
Phases are a system for tracking which changesets have been or should
be shared. This helps prevent common mistakes when modifying history
(for instance, with the mq or rebase extensions).
Each changeset in a repository is in one of the following phases:
- public : changeset is visible on a public server
- draft : changeset is not yet published
- secret : changeset should not be pushed, pulled, or cloned
These phases are ordered (public < draft < secret) and no changeset
can be in a lower phase than its ancestors. For instance, if a
changeset is public, all its ancestors are also public. Lastly,
changeset phases should only be changed towards the public phase.
How are phases managed?
=======================
For the most part, phases should work transparently. By default, a
changeset is created in the draft phase and is moved into the public
phase when it is pushed to another repository.
Once changesets become public, extensions like mq and rebase will
refuse to operate on them to prevent creating duplicate changesets.
Phases can also be manually manipulated with the :hg:`phase` command
if needed. See :hg:`help -v phase` for examples.
To make your commits secret by default, put this in your
configuration file::
[phases]
new-commit = secret
Phases and servers
==================
Normally, all servers are ``publishing`` by default. This means::
- all draft changesets that are pulled or cloned appear in phase
public on the client
- all draft changesets that are pushed appear as public on both
client and server
- secret changesets are neither pushed, pulled, or cloned
.. note::
Pulling a draft changeset from a publishing server does not mark it
as public on the server side due to the read-only nature of pull.
Sometimes it may be desirable to push and pull changesets in the draft
phase to share unfinished work. This can be done by setting a
repository to disable publishing in its configuration file::
[phases]
publish = False
See :hg:`help config` for more information on configuration files.
.. note::
Servers running older versions of Mercurial are treated as
publishing.
.. note::
Changesets in secret phase are not exchanged with the server. This
applies to their content: file names, file contents, and changeset
metadata. For technical reasons, the identifier (e.g. d825e4025e39)
of the secret changeset may be communicated to the server.
Examples
========
- list changesets in draft or secret phase::
hg log -r "not public()"
- change all secret changesets to draft::
hg phase --draft "secret()"
- forcibly move the current changeset and descendants from public to draft::
hg phase --force --draft .
- show a list of changeset revisions and each corresponding phase::
hg log --template "{rev} {phase}\n"
- resynchronize draft changesets relative to a remote repository::
hg phase -fd "outgoing(URL)"
See :hg:`help phase` for more information on manually manipulating phases.