status messages during hg clone

Dirkjan Ochtman dirkjan at
Sat Mar 22 04:31:10 CDT 2008

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at> wrote:
>  Basically, what I don't exactly understand is, why you didn't
>  just merge bf7afddcdca2 (my change) and d2713d902524 (crew main branch).

Right. In hindsight, that might've been better. I based my behavior on
how I interacted with crew before when we were discussing one of my
patches in IRC. They would usually just rebase my patch so that it
wouldn't need a merge (or ask me to rebase it). That's a bit
different, though, since there was more interaction.

>  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...).

I always keep my patches in mq on top of a repo, so I can easily
rebase a patch or pop it in favor of an upstream fix.

>  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.

I think sending a 35 KB patch would've been just fine. Makes review a
little easier.

>  My thinking was that I could push potential future changes there
>  as well, so that people could review them using the browser.

It is still useful to have a public mirror with patches applied where
people can review and/or pull from.



More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list