MQ usability

Peter Williams pwil3058 at bigpond.net.au
Sat Aug 15 20:44:01 CDT 2009


On 16/08/09 11:38, Peter Williams wrote:
> On 16/08/09 11:05, TK Soh wrote:
>> 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?
>
> By providing more than patch(1) provides. I.e. to be compatible with
> patch(1) all hg has to do is AT LEAST everything that patch(1) does.
> Being able to do more things doesn't make it incompatible.

Rereading your e-mail, I've realized that I missed the point slightly 
here.  Sorry.

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

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


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list