Tangential, but T8768 is a case where we generated an unfaithful synthetic diff (a diff --git that the git binary could not generate since 2006) and took the blame for it.
I'm not totally sure all variants of this are fixed, but I don't know how to reproduce any remaining issues.
- Make the grammar a bit smoother?
I'm also not really sure this string is grammatical English.
I filed a summary of this in the Mercurial upstream to waste someone else's time so I feel better:
This is an explicit behavior in Mercurial and dates from 2007:
The rule Git uses appears to literally be "does the filename include a space":
Mon, Jan 15
Thu, Jan 11
I have been trying to see about another way to do this until this is added (if it is I should say). We are finally getting ready to move to Phabricator, and I was hoping there was at least a shortcode or something I can use. Currently what I was trying to do was paste the query URL for a particular project's Passphrase credentials. What we were going to try was getting the query for whichever project's passwords, copying it, and adding it to the Project as a custom link.
- Push the worker changes back to D18862.
- Pull the minor changes from D18863 to here (value vs old) to improve conceptual purity.
D18862 was basically just a guess at what the implementation should look like, I didn't wire it up until this change. It could really be part of this change, I split them mostly because I wrote that first (before doing any of the other changes here), then backed off and took a different approach, but it was still sitting in a separate commit locally. Moving those changes to D18862 or merging D18862 into this would probably be a little more "pure" in some sense, the changes were just split into somewhat-reasonable chunks on disk already so I left them like that.
I think each actual edit normally writes at least 5 rows when it actually applies (offhand: transaction, feed story, mail message, notification row, Herald transcript) so the overhead of the bulk job should always be fairly low compared to the overhead of actually performing an edit, even though it's high relative to, say, holding a string in memory.
There are some pieces here I don't really understand; will come back with lots of questions soon.
Wed, Jan 10
You can git checkout experimental to switch to the experimental branch. This may not merge to master until the entire experimental branch merges, which is possibly far in the future.
Tue, Jan 9
Is this going to land in master any time soon? Our company would love to use the draft feature.
I'm going to close this since it was mostly answered and the remaining questions (about custom extension development) are outside the scope of modern support. See T13039 for a followup about numeric fields in Herald.
Ah, thanks! This is probably effectively covered by T9948 anyway -- one of the major changes for the Git flavor of that (T9657) was "put things back the way they were when anything goes wrong, even if we discard merge/rebase work", and that seems like a better behavior. I'll make a note there just in case.
Mon, Jan 8
I tried a few scenarios for this and wasn't able to reproduce
- Single commit in diff that creates conflict
- Multiple commits in diff that all create conflicts
- Single commit in diff where first commit does not create conflict but second does
Alright! You know where to find me or this patch if interest arises :)
Probably, yes. Our modern roadmap is almost entirely driven by paying customers, and no customers have expressed interest in this.
@epriestley is the best course of action for this diff to abandon it?