<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:41 PM Hollis Blanchard <<a href="mailto:hollis_blanchard@mentor.com">hollis_blanchard@mentor.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I work with some Mercurial trees that use more than one bookmark (an
alternative form of branches). I found that Buildbot only supports a
single branch, so I had to extend it.<br>
<br>
Logically speaking I think there are three changes: using
StateMixin, supporting multiple branches, and supporting bookmarks.
Is it worth trying to to split them up?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It depends how much effort that entails, but typically changes are easier to review if they do only one thing. I'm not familiar enough with the code to comment on the patch.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
The attached patch is an RFC because:<br>
<ul>
<li>I'm not sure how you like patches delivered (email?), or what
style.</li></ul></div></blockquote><div>Github PR's please :) <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><ul>
<li>It's against 1.8.0. I will update to master and retest
everything with python3 after I figure out how you'd like the
new code to be submitted.</li>
<li>I didn't attempt to do anything with backwards compatibility
for old databases that only track a single branch. Do you care?
Maybe it's as easy as checking the type of the getState()
result, and ignoring/replacing it if it's a single revision?</li>
</ul>
</div></blockquote><div>Typically we are concerned with backward compatibility, so yes, some work on that would be good.</div><div><br></div><div>Dustin<br></div></div></div>