[PATCH STABLE] largefiles: treat status of cache missed largefiles as "missing" correctly

Greg Ward greg-hg at gerg.ca
Fri Nov 11 21:03:37 CST 2011


On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 02:35 +0900, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp>
>> # Date 1320946381 -32400
>> # Branch stable
>> # Node ID b08bda4e36972a07ff888ba69394ea7fc454e4e7
>> # Parent  54c0517c0fe8af4f8851a1bbb5bb229f0e7dd853
>> largefiles: treat status of cache missed largefiles as "missing" correctly
>
> This doesn't look completely insane, so I'll queue it. But I'd still
> like the other largefiles experts to look it over.

Seems reasonable to me, although I'm not too familiar with this bit of
largefiles yet. I really appreciate the detailed test case and nice
clear comment! The reference to lfiles_repo.status() made me wonder if
the bug should really be fixed there, so I crept carefully into that
method ... and then ran screaming in terror [1]. It's hairy. Patching
it in _updatelfile() is certainly more straightforward.

Greg

[1] I think I may have tripped on the bones of the last intrepid
adventurer who ventured into lfiles_repo.status().


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list