[PATCH] add explicit extension disabling syntax to hgrc.5
pmezard at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 01:36:37 CST 2008
Adrian Buehlmann a écrit :
> On 26.02.2008 22:14, Patrick Mézard wrote:
>> Steve Borho a écrit :
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Steve Borho <steve at borho.org>
>>> # Date 1204028711 21600
>>> # Node ID 96ef88ccbcb0e790b25f5c4eecbe2bd29033287e
>>> # Parent 434139080ed4007d99e843b203c7da0850238744
>>> add explicit extension disabling syntax to hgrc.5
>> Slightly edited and pushed in crew as 7f9f3233a2c6. Thanks !
> No comment on this particular edit, but
> here is something that I do find a bit odd as a new Mercurial
> user who watches how Mercurial itself is used on the crew repo:
> You edited a changeset originally created by Steve, but your
> edit is invisible and is merged with Steve's edit and credited
> to Steve alone.
> I would normally expect that each edit is transparently credited
> to whoever made it?
> So I wonder why you didn't make two changesets of this.
> One with Steve's original patch, followed by your edit.
> Just an observation. Possibly a very bad example here since your edit
> is certainly good. But for me it looks a bit like someone signs
> something using the signature of somebody else. A bit like using
> the wrong sender address in an email. Something I really wouldn't like
> to do myself.
> On another note, it seems that repository pullers will never know who
> pushed the change into crew by looking into the crew repo alone.
> An information that would be nice to have as well.
You are right. The trade-off is between cluttering the history with smallish style fixes and asking the contributor to submit its patch again (plus in my case, the feeling that contribution and review time is a scarce resource). In this particular case, the patch was discussed on IRC and Steve was OK about rewriting it slightly. A more interesting example is Jesse's XML escaping patch I pushed the same way recently. Again, the edit was about a small style change. I really wondered what would be the best way to do this, and settled to push it nevertheless. Maybe I should have resubmitted the edited version before pushing it, which I did sometimes. I prefer not to bother people with typos and spacing issues to much but it's worse if they feel cheated because of this. Feedback is welcome.
And yes, having a reviewer/committer field would be good sometimes.
More information about the Mercurial-devel