[PATCH] RFC: localrepo: look at .hg/hgrc.d/*.rc after .hg/hgrc
John.Coomes at sun.com
Thu Mar 6 13:51:50 CST 2008
Peter Arrenbrecht (peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:51 AM, John Coomes <John.Coomes at sun.com> wrote:
> > Bryan O'Sullivan (bos at serpentine.com) wrote:
> > > Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
> > > > This is an attempt to solve the problem of configuring sets of
> > > > related server repos such that common config is kept central.
> > > > Instead of adding an include directive to .hg/hgrc, I simply
> > > > mimick /etc/mercurial/hgrc.d/*.rc for .hg/hgrc.d/*.rc. This allows
> > > > me to use symlinks to factor out common config:
> > >
> > > Nice idea. Please polish it up and submit a real version.
> > The major goal mentioned on
> > http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/SpecificHgrcForSetsOfRepos
> > was to
> > Do this extra configuration in such a way that new clones are
> > automatically configured correctly.
> > I don't see how symlinks in .hg/hgrc.d/* accomplish it, since they're
> > not cloned (unless I'm missing something).
> Absolutely correct. Sadly, we never got anywhere with that. And it was
> focused on handling _client_ clones. I see there's a new proposal by
> Jonathan Shapiro in this direction, which looks promising. But I
> haven't looked at it in detail yet.
> Meanwhile, I am trying to solve a problem on the _server_ right now.
Aha. Didn't realize this was addressing a different problem. I'd
also love to have a solution for "client-side" hgrc files.
> Anyhow, I think this change is nothing radically new (see
> /etc/mercurial/hgrc.d/*.rc) and easy and safe to implement. And I'd
> like to see _something_ that helps in this direction in hg 1.0.
Yes, I agree; it's reasonable and consistent with the handling of
system-wide hgrc files.
More information about the Mercurial-devel