mq and named queues - and qseries --edit. Was: Re: mercurial at 11238: 10 new changesets (3 stable)

Gilles Moris gilles.moris at free.fr
Sun Jun 6 16:23:15 CDT 2010


On Sunday 06 June 2010 04:51:26 pm Martin Geisler wrote:
> Kevin Bullock <kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> writes:
> > On 4 Jun 2010, at 1:58 PM, Martin Geisler wrote:
> >> The idea is that instead of editing the series file manually, I would do
> >> something like
> >>
> >>  hg qpush --grab foo
> >>
> >> to apply patch 'foo' next, thereby editing the series file on the fly.
> >> This would basically turn the unapplied patches into a *set* instead of
> >> a *list*, allowing you to grab any unapplied patch and apply it.
> >>
> >> I would even consider making --grab the default when there is a named
> >> patch on the command line. That way
> >>
> >>  hg qpush     <-- apply next patch in series
> >>  hg qpush foo <-- make 'foo' next and apply it
> >>
> >> You would then use
> >>
> >>  hg qgoto foo
> >>
> >> to get the old behavior of
> >>
> >>  hg qpush foo
> >
> > FWIW I agree with Mads that this would be dangerous.
>
> Yes, reordering patches are of course dangerous.
>
> > I like the idea of having a --grab option, but not making that
> > behavior the default.
>
> No, that would probably be too much, not to mention totally backwards
> incompatible.
>
> > Here's why I like the option: the series file, although it's in
> > plaintext, is essentially serialized state of the patch queue. Letting
> > the software manipulate it that knows about its format seems
> > preferable in the normal case, even if manual hacking ability is nice
> > to have.
>
> Right.

Isn't qpush --move already that ?


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list