RFC: Managing Mercurial Repositories Remotely
Jesse Glick
jesse.glick at sun.com
Wed Feb 20 15:57:46 CST 2008
Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
>>> The reason I wanted to support MQ on the server was for allowing
>>> easy web review of patches maintained in a queue.
>>
>> Why can't you just link to the actual patch (in the queue
>> repository as browsable by hgwebdir)?
>
> That does not give me annotate or, if hgweb ever supports it, diffs
> with more context on the patched files [...for use in] reviewboard.
I still don't get it. Running MQ commands on a remote repository seems
like a terrible idea to me. If you just have your "real" remote
repository which people develop as usual, and a remote patch queue
repository which people can also push into, then all your information is
available.
If you want Reviewboard or any other web-based tool to be able to
display a patch in the context of unmodified lines or files, it can
simply maintain a private local clone of both repositories and use
regular local MQ commands to calculate the appearance of patches in
context. Such a server could decide either to have one MQ-managed local
repo and serve only one web request at a time (running e.g. 'hg qgo &&
hg qdi'), or maintain a pool of such repos to permit concurrent display
of different patches, or run a background process to push patches and
cache displayable information resulting from them, ad nauseam - none of
which would be safe or efficient if it had to make remote calls.
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list