Bookmarks in core?

[Martin Geisler]

Augie Fackler <durin42 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Didly Bom wrote:
>
>> As a user it'd be nice if bookmarks were integrated into core and
>> makes it easier to share your bookmarks, so this gets a +1 from me.
>> 
>> Actually I like the idea of somehow reducing the gap between tags and
>> bookmarks, especially if that meant that we could get rid of all
>> those ugly "extra commits" that are introduced when you add a non
>> local tag (yuk!).
>
> Those "ugly" extra commits are here to stay. I can't think of any
> reasonable way to hide them that wouldn't grossly violate backwards
> compatibility (I even *like* them, although taht probably puts me in
> the minority.)
>
> If anything, I think it makes sense to *increase* the difference
> between bookmarks and tags (make the notion of a bookmark detached
> somewhat from the notion of a tag, so that `hg tags` wouldn't print
> bookmarks as well as tags.

If one could mark a bookmark as fixed, then it would behave like a tag,
but without any extra commits. Users could then use these bookmark-tags
for new tags if they want, whereas other users can keep using old-school
tags if they prefer.

So no hiding and no changes to the existing tag code -- just a new kind
of bookmark that knows that it should not move around when commits are
made.

Btw, I'm not really bothered by the extra commits or the .hgtags file,
but it has been a repeated complain by many users who feel it is "ugly"
to have Mercurial meta data in the working copy like that. I would like
to offer them a solution.

-- 
Martin Geisler

Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20101201/5ba7bb65/attachment.pgp>