[PATCH 0 of 5] RFC: hq qrecord -- like record, but for mq (take 2)

[Kirill Smelkov]

I'm a former Darcs user, and I've discovered that it is very convenient to
actually perform development using MQ first, and only when the patches are
'ready' move them to project's history in stone.


Usually I work on some topic, temporarily forgetting about any version control,
and just do coding, experimenting, debugging, etc.

After some time, I approach a moment, where my work should actually go to
patches/commits, and here is the problem::

    As it is now, there is no way to put part of the changes into one patch,
    and another part of the changes into second patch.

    This works, but only when changes are touching separate files, and for
    semantically different changes touching the same file(s) there is now
    pretty way to put them into separate patches.

For some time, I've tolerated the pain to run vim patches/... and move hunks
between files by hand, but I think this affects my productivity badly.


So, here is the first step towards untiing the problem:

    Let's use 'hg qrecord' for mq, like we use 'hg record' for usual commits!


P.S. who is current mq maintainer?


Changes since take 1
--------------------

o fix typo
o fix record/qrecord when invoked in subdir
o now record tests pass
o make it apply cleanly on top of latest crew (2b67acc404f6)
  (previously it was based on record+getch patches)