status messages during hg clone
adrian at cadifra.com
Fri Mar 21 19:37:41 CDT 2008
On 21.03.2008 14:54, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Adrian Buehlmann <adrian <at> cadifra.com> writes:
>> I uploaded changeset bf7afddcdca2, pullable from here:
>> (based on clean e29557d687c9).
> I rebased your patch and pushed it to crew as 0750f11152fe. Thanks!
Thanks a lot, Dirkjan!
Since I'm still learning, I'm a bit puzzled once again about how
Mercurial is used for Mercurial development here.
Basically, what I don't exactly understand is, why you didn't
just merge bf7afddcdca2 (my change) and d2713d902524 (crew main branch).
This would exactly have recorded the fact that you have applied
my change into crew (an information I have already said to have
For example, you could have written in the merge changeset comment:
"applied: clone: print "updating working directory" status message"
and we would have known who exactly integrated my change and when.
I'm really puzzled why this excellent feature of Mercurial was not
used here. What could be made better so that it would actually be
Yes, I know, I was told that crew should not be "cluttered up".
But it looks a bit like we would use Perforce here, which *always*
rebases inside a branch.
Now I do have a stale head in my repo at
plus the rebased, officially accepted change 0750f11152fe:
> hg glog -l5 --style compact
@ 6339[tip] 0750f11152fe 2008-03-21 14:52 +0100 adrian
| clone: print "updating working directory" status message
o 6338 d2713d902524 2008-03-21 12:05 +0100 dirkjan
| give better error message on non-existent mapfile (issue813)
o 6337:6335 4b0c9c674707 2008-03-21 11:06 +0100 dirkjan
| warn about new heads on commit (issue842)
| o 6336 bf7afddcdca2 2008-03-21 11:46 +0100 adrian
|/ clone: print "updating working directory" status message
o 6335 e29557d687c9 2008-03-21 00:55 +0100 dirkjan
| hgweb: only accept POST requests for unbundle
Now, I could use that discussed new feature "closing branches"
to mark bf7afddcdca2 as closed or strip it away. But stripping
it would break the link in my archived posting (ok, no one would
probably be throughly disappointed here...).
As a side note: I choose not to send my change as a patch to
the list, because I thought sending 35 KB text to the list
would have been bad.
The other option I was thinking of was to make a bundle of it --
which would have been 7KB -- but I didn't know where to upload
that and so I choose to simply go ahead and upload a clone to
the webspace I already had.
My thinking was that I could push potential future changes there
as well, so that people could review them using the browser.
Sorry for nitpicking again. And thanks for being patient with
More information about the Mercurial-devel