[PATCH 0 of 3] Add option for operating on queue repository
greg-hg at gerg.ca
Tue Jul 7 09:07:54 CDT 2009
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Dan Villiom Podlaski
Christiansen<danchr at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that such a command script would lead to a fair amount
> of user confusion: How would it behave when mq is disabled?
Fail. Also fail if no .hg/patches directory and no .hg/patches/.hg repository.
> Which MQ
> operations should be handled by it, and which should be handled by the
> regular script?
Anything to do with the stack of patches would remain where it
currently is, the "hg q*" commands. The "mq" script would only deal
with version control on the .hg/patches directory. I.e. it replaces
the shell alias "hg -R $(hg root)" that is recommended by The Book.
> Also, are you sure mq — an arguably advanced and possibly destructive
> extension — should be elevated to a visibility similar to the rest of
> Mercurial? In my opinion, that's what making it the second command
> installed would do.
That is a valid point. More so when you consider that if mq itself is
advanced, then versioning .hg/patches is even more advanced. I know
it took me a few weeks to get used to the workflow. (Although now I
Well, I still want to write the script. Or have someone write it for
me. If nothing else, it should be more efficient than the shell
alias, since it only requires one fork and one Python interpreter. If
it winds up in contrib rather than a full-fledged sibling of 'hg'
itself, that would be OK by me.
More information about the Mercurial-devel