transpant and keywords together
adam.berkes at intland.com
Tue Dec 22 01:27:08 CST 2009
The problem is indeed that the problem is that keywords are transplanted
as *expanded* to target branch, and that will became part of the
repository which causes weird modified status with empty diff (if
keyword extension is turned on).
E.g.: if I modify a file keyword will be correctly handled during commit
so '$Id$' will be written back to repository (checked by turning off
keyword extension) but if keyword extension is turned on and I would
like to transplant this change to another branch then the transplant
process will use the expanded form ($Id: 25696 someuser...$) from the
working copy and that will be committed.
@Matt: for me it is totally clear that using keywords is a kind of
deprecated way and should be avoided, but I was unable to convince other
parties in our project. That is the case now.
> * Berkes Adam on Monday, December 21, 2009 at 14:21:46 +0100
>> I have a problem with transplant extension when keyword extension is
>> also active. When a changeset contains a file which has an
>> expandable keyword transplant is going to apply the file to the
>> destination branch as keyword is in expanded state (the source
>> changeset is correct, repository contains the shrinked version).
> I've read your description several times, unfortunately I don't
> understand it ;-(
> Is the keyword in the destination branch expanded or not?
> Simple example starting with 0 revs:
> $ hg transplant -s ../test -p 1:tip
> changeset: 0:87cf64da941f
> user: Christian Ebert<blacktrash at gmx.net>
> date: Sat Nov 24 12:41:01 2007 +0100
> summary: addA
> apply changeset? [ynmpcq?]: y
> requesting all changes
> adding changesets
> adding manifests
> adding file changes
> added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
> $ cat a
> $Id: a,v 87cf64da941f 2007-11-24 12:41 +0100 blacktrash $
> $ hg id
> 87cf64da941f tip
>> I've saw forum post about the subject which was rather old, so I'm
>> not sure it is a forgotten one or simply it never raised as a
> Do you have a link?
>> I can reproduce it with 1.3.1/1.4.1 as well.
> Can you provide a small sample script to show the problem?
More information about the Mercurial-devel