A Question about bfrefresh

[Marcus Lindblom]

On 2010-02-04 04:33, Greg Ward wrote:
> The next move is of course tighter integration with core hg, which
> means doing exactly what I just said is surprising or even evil.  But
> it would be much less surprising if "hg status" actually reports
>
>    M foo
>    A
>    B-M bigfile
>
> before "hg commit" magically updates .hgbfiles/bigfile.
>
> In other words, auto-status mode is approximately as important as
> auto-refresh mode.  I think they are both essential, I'm just not sure
> if one must come before the other.  Offhand I think that auto-status
> mode should come first.

Just FYI, subrepos ought to do something similar, I think.

mpm seems to want the statuses of all repos to be reported at once, so 
some kind of extra info is necessary so that other tools can determine 
what is important and not. (I submitted a simple patch for recursive 
status, and that wasn't according to plan. However, I didn't get any 
feedback on my follow-up post so I'm unsure what the proper way is).

Awyway, Bigfiles could (should?) identify itself in a similar way to 
subrepos on the output (so that tools and humans can easily differ 
what's in the repo proper and what is data handled by extensions...)

Cheers
/Marcus