status messages during hg clone
dirkjan at ochtman.nl
Sat Mar 22 04:31:10 CDT 2008
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> 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
> 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