[PATCH RFC] mq: support "qimport --existing --name renametothis thatexistingpatch"

[Johan Samyn]

2010/7/21 timeless <timeless at gmail.com>

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Johan Samyn <johan.samyn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2010/7/21 Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com>
> >>
> >> Nicolas Dumazet <nicdumz at gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > # HG changeset patch
> >> > # User Nicolas Dumazet <nicdumz.commits at gmail.com>
> >> > # Date 1279680789 -32400
> >> > # Node ID 6e5678b960329674539868ecf6eaf102979f4464
> >> > # Parent  36310766229b03fde600f54503bd11cbcc0e6d74
> >> > mq: support "qimport --existing --name renametothis thatexistingpatch"
> >>
> >> That is a nice idea.
> >
> > I agree. Only ... such reversed-order-things always give me the shivers.
> > IMHO it should become "qimport --existing --rename thatexistingpatch
> > tothisnewpatch".
> > Much more natural/intuitive. But that would require a new option
> (--rename),
> > which is not obvious I suppose ? Just my 2cents :).
>
> hg qimport [-e] [-n NAME] [-f] [-g] [-P] [-r REV]... FILE...
>
>  -e --existing     import file in patch directory
>  -n --name NAME    name of patch file
>
> i think it's reasonable to expect this to just work today:
>
> qimport -e patch -n newname
>
> that would require a bit of magic to the help and stuff, but....
>

Aah now I see. Guess I'll have to learn not to react to the subject of the
mail only, and also look into the patch itself (and try some things out
first for myself). Sorry for adding unnecessary noise to this thread.
So, I just tried the new patch here, and it seems to work fine. I noticed
the patchfile itself is correctly renamed, and the new name added to the
series file. But the series file still contains the old patchname too, while
there is no corresponding patchfile for it anymore. Is that intentionally ?
-- Johan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20100721/0f33365e/attachment.htm>