hgrc.5.text FILES content, ordering implied?

[Douglas Philips]

On or about 2009 Aug 27, at 11:22 AM, Steve Borho indited:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Martin Geisler<mg at lazybytes.net>  
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure there is a "need" as such -- it is enough if Mercurial
>> would load one file on each system, especially now that a config file
>> can include other config files (so both .hgrc and Mercurial.ini could
>> include a file with common settings).
>>
>> Would you prefer Mercurial to load only Mercurial.ini on Windows and
>> only .hgrc on Unix, and that we deprecate the .hgrc file on Windows?
>
> Does anyone run Mercurial on cygwin?  Does that platform use the
> windows version of util or the posix version?  The only reason to
> support ~/.hgrc on the Windows platform, IMHO,  is for cygwin.

I run cygwin under XP. Its the only way I can stay semi-sane at work. :)

The thing is, that doesn't matter, because the Python that Hg and THg  
use is a windows native Python, so all the file paths (for hooks,  
etc.) are all completely different. Across the various *nix, *BSD,  
etc. systems I can use symlinks, etc. in the filesystem to keep the  
insanity manageable. :)

So, to answer Martin's question, yes, I would love it if Windows only  
loaded Mercurial.ini files, but, there is a >year old patch that  
explicitly changed that. I have no idea how to find out why, and I'm  
expected Matt's clue-by-four to come swinging in, singing the  
"backwards compatibility" tune. :)

-Doug