Rethinking mq and pbranch now we have rebase

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 09:52 +0100, Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
>> Folks, maybe clever use of rebase could lead to a new approach to what
>> is currently addressed by mq and pbranch.
>
> You're aware that you can rebase applied mq patches and they'll continue
> to be mq patches, right?

Yes, learning this is what started me thinking. Point is, why still
keep the patches sitting around in .hg/patches? And (optionally)
trying to version them as patch files? And enforcing linearity amonst
them? When we can just keep them as csets with full fork/join support,
and version them by just keeping rebase sources in the tree?
-parren