Need feedback for extension name

Oben Sonne obensonne at
Mon Nov 30 12:00:01 CST 2009

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Oben Sonne <obensonne at> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Greg Ward <greg-hg at> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Oben Sonne <obensonne at> wrote:
>>> I've written an extension for Mercurial which is supposed to
>>> automatically synchronize a local repository with a remote one. The
>>> extension does a duplex synchronization, i.e. it first commits changes
>>> in the local repository (optionally with automatic tracking/untracking
>>> of new/missing files), then it pulls changes from the remote repo,
>>> tries to merge them and finally it pushes all changes back to the
>>> remote repo.
>> Interesting.  Sounds like "bound mode" (that's Bazaar terminology) on
>> steroids.  Did you take a look at BIll Barry's boundmode extension
>> that implements bzr-like push-on-commit
>> (  It sounds
>> like he has already done half the work of your extension; perhaps the
>> auto-pull-merge feature could be implemented as a patch to boundmode?
> Interesting, did not recognized the bound mode extension yet. I'll
> definitely have a look into it.
> For now I would keep my extension as a separate one as it is finished
> already (I'm currently working on the test scripts).
>>> All this happens continuously at a given interval.
>> What, like, in the background?  Did you write a daemon for this, or is
>> the user supposed to set up a cron job?
> The extension accepts a --daemon option, similar as for the serve command.
>>> The extension is ready to to get published but I'm not sure yet about
>>> the name. I would like to call it the 'sync' extension, because this
>>> is what it does. However, as 'sync' is a quite generic term, I wonder
>>> if it somehow might cause conflicts or ambiguities within the
>>> Mercurial universe.
>> autosync?
>> autopushpull?
>> autopushpullmerge? (ok, just kidding)
>> superbound?
>> bound2way?
>> duplexbound?
> I like autosync and superbound.
>> (Hmmm: I kinda like "duplexbound": if this really has to be a separate
>> extension from Bill's boundmode, it would be nice to show the
>> similarity in the name.  But IMHO it would be better to have one more
>> powerful extension than two overlapping extensions.)
> The use case for my extension does not really expect users to manually
> run hg commands in the repos to sync. It is supposed to be a quiet
> backend to just synchronize files located in the repositories. As it
> is designed to run in the background, it has a strong focus on how to
> cope with errors and merge conflicts which cannot be resolved
> automatically. I think this differs quite a lot from the bound
> extension, which (if I got it right) tries to assist in a centralized
> workflow. Adding the pull-bound feature to the bound extensions may be
> reasonable, but the running-in-background features would be off topic
> there.
> I think it would be better to keep both extensions separately.

The winner is autosync:


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list