[PATCH 0 of 4] A Branch Closing patch series

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Tue Jan 6 16:19:57 CST 2009

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 16:42 -0500, John Mulligan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 09:30:57PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On 23/12/2008 20:31, John Mulligan wrote:
> >> Feedback is very welcome.
> >
> > Matt, any more comments, or is this good to go?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dirkjan
> Ditto. (Just trying to see what the status is.)

This all looks good so far, but I haven't dug into it deeply enough yet.
My remaining concerns are things like:

- are there behavioral changes to hg branches? (I assume so?)
- should there be? (probably yes)
- should we keep the 'old' notion of inactive heads?
- are there behavioral changes to hg heads? (unclear)
- should there be? (probably not?)
- what's the new cache format?
- is the new cache format good enough?

These are exactly the sorts of things people should include in their
changelogs to make reviewing easier. Otherwise, I need to spend a lot
more time going over the patch figuring out whether it's the right
thing, which increases the odds that something shiny will come along and
distract me.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list