Use built-in fsmonitor instead of watchman in mach mercurial-setup if Mercurial version >= 3.8

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 49

Status

Firefox Build System
Mach Core
RESOLVED FIXED
2 years ago
4 months ago

People

(Reporter: TYLin, Assigned: jeremychen)

Tracking

Trunk
mozilla49

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox49 fixed)

Details

MozReview Requests

Submitter Diff Changes Open Issues Last Updated
Loading...
Error loading review requests:

Attachments

(1 attachment)

According to the mercurial 3.8 release note, watchman has been integrated into core, and rename to 'fsmonitor'.  We might want install fsmonitor to the user's hgrc when running `mach mercurial-setup` if Mercurial version >= 3.8.

https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Release3.8
Any pros of doing so ?
Assignee: nobody → jeremychen
Created attachment 8758579 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1277134 - Add built-in fsmonitor support for Mercurial version>=3.8.

The hgwatchman project has been renamed to fsmonitor and has been moved
into Mercurial core, as of version 3.8.
Accordingly, for Mercurial >= 3.8, we shall skip installing hgwatchman
but just set fsmonitor in hgrc file instead.

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/
Attachment #8758579 - Flags: review?(gps)
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/#review53534

::: tools/mercurial/hgsetup/wizard.py:247
(Diff revision 1)
> -Would you like to install hgwatchman
> +Note that the hgwatchman project has been renamed to fsmonitor and has
> +been moved into Mercurial core, as of version 3.8. So, if your Mercurial
> +version is modern enough (>=3.8), you could set fsmonitor in hgrc file
> +directly.
> +
> +Would you like to install hgwatchman or enable fsmonitor?

Note a question containing a "or" with a y/n prompt feels weird.

It seems to me it would be better to rephrase the explanation to talk about file system monitoring in a generic way and leave out the name of the extension, which doesn't really matter for the user.
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/#review53534

> Note a question containing a "or" with a y/n prompt feels weird.
> 
> It seems to me it would be better to rephrase the explanation to talk about file system monitoring in a generic way and leave out the name of the extension, which doesn't really matter for the user.

Good point. Address your comments.
Comment on attachment 8758579 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1277134 - Add built-in fsmonitor support for Mercurial version>=3.8.

Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/diff/1-2/
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED

Comment 6

2 years ago
Comment on attachment 8758579 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1277134 - Add built-in fsmonitor support for Mercurial version>=3.8.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/56852/#review53636

This is a good start. We'll want to follow up to convert configs from hgwatchman to fsmonitor. But that can be in a different bug.
Attachment #8758579 - Flags: review?(gps) → review+

Comment 8

2 years ago
Pushed by jichen@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c77f5610b2a8
Add built-in fsmonitor support for Mercurial version>=3.8. r=gps

Comment 9

2 years ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c77f5610b2a8
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 2 years ago
status-firefox49: affected → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla49

Updated

4 months ago
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.