Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[cinap_lenrek]

noted.

on very low priority for me as i dont have much time and like
working on plan9 problems rather than python ones.

this would mostly consist of doing tons of testing to see
if there are any operational issues with the new python code.
not just cloning bitbucket repos but actually do commits, merge,
remove, add, diff ect... also wonder if our repo format is
still fully supported. as people will not manually nuke ther
/dist/.hg.

see if hg serve still works...

maybe add support for new repo formats to hgfs...

also, how big are the differences? have you diffed the python
code and can say how big the changes in mercurial are?

--
cinap

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[Nick Owens]

executing diffstat on linux against plan9front's copy and mercurial 3.4.1:

 114 files changed, 34938 insertions(+), 12458 deletions(-)

it is nice that mercurial 3.4.1 already works, but it would indeed be
quite some work to replace the system hg with it.

i suppose for now i can simply encourage people to install mercurial
3.4.1 and use it instead of the system hg.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:41 PM <cinap_lenrek@felloff.net> wrote:
>
> noted.
>
> on very low priority for me as i dont have much time and like
> working on plan9 problems rather than python ones.
>
> this would mostly consist of doing tons of testing to see
> if there are any operational issues with the new python code.
> not just cloning bitbucket repos but actually do commits, merge,
> remove, add, diff ect... also wonder if our repo format is
> still fully supported. as people will not manually nuke ther
> /dist/.hg.
>
> see if hg serve still works...
>
> maybe add support for new repo formats to hgfs...
>
> also, how big are the differences? have you diffed the python
> code and can say how big the changes in mercurial are?
>
> --
> cinap

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

why didn't you do diff between the mercurial 9front is BASED on and
mercurial 3.4.1 ?!
we already know there were tons of changes in 9front's copy. this is
thus worthless information.

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

also, why should do you want to encourage people to install mercurial
3.4.1 ?

bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[Nick Owens]

our hg (which i think is about version 1.4) will fail to pull some
bitbucket hg repos.

cpu% ramfs
cpu% cd /tmp
cpu% hg clone -r tip https://bitbucket.org/oridb/mc
destination directory: mc
requesting all changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 4988 changesets with 12508 changes to 1680 files
updating working directory
1090 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
cpu% cd mc
cpu% hg pull
pulling from https://bitbucket.org/oridb/mc
searching for changes
abort: '/mnt/web/0/body' 400 Bad Request: /mnt/web/0/body
cpu%

hg is issuing a particular request where the resulting URI is over
4096 bytes, and the bitbucket server rejects this with a 400, and the
response body claims that this is because a line in the request is too
long (the URI). it's about 5200 bytes long in this instance.

in ports, there is mercurial 3.4.1
(https://code.9front.org/hg/ports/file/d0100ff1c37e/dev-vcs/mercurial/mkfile)
which does not have this problem. in newer hg, the wire protocol seems
quite different, but there's also a particular feature where hg can
send rpc arguments through split-up http headers rather than all
smushed into a URI.

there's a few options:

update the system hg to mercurial 3.4.1 (or whatever the latest
working copy is) and deal with the resulting fallout.
cherry-pick code from newer mercurial.
ignore the problem.

one caveat of updating to newer mercurial is that upstream dropped
python 2.5 support some years ago.

discuss.

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

> one caveat of updating to newer mercurial is that upstream dropped
> python 2.5 support some years ago.

so then how does your port work then?!

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[Nick Owens]

you'd want 3.4.1 if you want newer mercurial features, or want to
avoid this bug.

mercurial 3.4.1 was release before they axed python 2.5 support.

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

fucking hell, so 3.4.1 is also already multiple years old?!

i doubt anybody would like to waste a week updating both python and hg.
also: how often will this game need to be repeated in the future if we
start with this now?

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[Nick Owens]

our hg is approximately 9 years old. 3.4.1 is about 4 years old.

perhaps within another 5 years, more stuff will break. i and a
nontrivial amount of other people use bitbucket for mercurial hosting
and interact with it from 9front, so having it work reliably is pretty
desirable.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:44 PM hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> fucking hell, so 3.4.1 is also already multiple years old?!
>
> i doubt anybody would like to waste a week updating both python and hg.
> also: how often will this game need to be repeated in the future if we
> start with this now?

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

let's just wait 9 more years, perhaps bitbucket will stop supporting hg then.

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[Kurt H Maier]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:02:03AM +0100, hiro wrote:
> let's just wait 9 more years, perhaps bitbucket will stop supporting hg then.

there are three editions of bitbucket, and only one supports hg any
more. I'd say 9 years from now we'll definitely be on our own.  

khm

Re: [9front] bug: hg pull fails on a bitbucket repo

[hiro]

i want my money back, mischief. nontrivial myass