MQ usability

[TK Soh]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Matt Mackall<mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 05:48 +0000, TK Soh wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman<dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
>> > So people invariably complain that MQ is hard to use. On the other
>> > hand, everyone recognizes that it's also quite powerful. I'd like to
>> > fix the former without losing the latter. Therefore, I have a few
>> > proposals to improve on the current situation:
>> >
>> > - remove qgoto, qnext, qprev, qtop: this functionality is already
>> > covered quite well by qpop, qpush, qseries and log.
>> >
>> > - possibly remove qsave/qrestore as well, since no one seems to use
>> > them (and many people get confused by them).
>> >
>> > - make qrefresh <file> not exclude other files from the patch: this
>> > trips a lot of people up, and the other behavior is often useful, too.
>> >
>> > - add a qsplit command to deal with the actual usage of qrefresh for
>> > excluding hunks (interactive mode for this would rock even more).
>> >
>> > Other possible niceties:
>> >
>> > - make qnew vs. qnew -f more intuitive somehow (I'm really not sure
>> > how, but this usage of -f doesn't really fit in).
>> >
>> > - make qpush try a merge instead of throwing .rej files around
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>>
>> Sorry to bring up the old topic. I wonder if it's possible to make
>> --git format the default?
>
> No. Ask again when standard patch(1) accepts git patches.

I am confused. How does Mercurial export and import patches that
involve changes in file permission or binary data, while maintaining
patch(1) compatibility?