MQ usability

[Peter Williams]

On 15/08/09 18:44, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Peter, Stuart,
> All,
>
> On Saturday 15 August 2009 08:03:07 Peter Williams wrote:
>> On 15/08/09 13:13, Stuart W. Marks wrote:
>>> But for MQ, the patch is mainly an internal storage format.
>> No, it's not.  In a lot of cases, MQ is being used to generate patch
>> sets for distribution to users who aren't necessarily using MQ to manage
>> them at there end.
>
> It should be an internal storage format, but mq is missing a qexport
> function, which means that to send back a patch, one has to manually
> copy it from .hg/patches/.
>
> If all mq management could be done without the user needing to manualy
> delve in .hg/patches/, from end-to-end, then we could well use whatever
> patch format.

I agree.

>
> And, on top of that, I see that whatever lays in .hg/ belongs to Mercurial,
> and the end user should *not* have to go in there (except maybe for hgrc).

I also agree with this (and wonder why <wdir>/.hg/hgrc isn't just 
<wdir>/.hgrc). Also see my earlier mail re the desirability of mq having 
a command to set patch (applied or unapplied) descriptions rather than 
editing the patch file.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058 at bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce