Marking subrepos in 'hg status'

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Tue Oct 19 17:15:28 CDT 2010


On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:26 +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> timeless <timeless at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
> >> With your suggestion we can have
> >>
> >>   M sub1/
> >>   M sub1/a
> >>   M sub2/
> >>   M sub2/x
> >>   A sub1/
> >>   A sub1/b
> >>   A sub2/
> >>   A sub2/y
> >>
> >> Where we first sort by state and then by subrepo. It does lead to quite
> >> a few mentions of each subrepository, though.
> >
> > Only in the case where there are lots of sub repos with very few
> > changes. In the normal case you'll probably have >6 dirty files per
> > sub repo. Or you'll have subrepos with very few distinct states. I
> > don't think it's such a big problem.
> 
> I agree -- I think this is a nice and consistent way to show the status.

I don't like it. We've always only listed files.

In my view, the end goal of subrepo support is for you -not to have to
be aware you're using subrepos-. I think this is more or less the
experience in SVN and CVS. That goal is obviously still a ways off, but
adding new types of status entries is not a step in the right direction.

An alternative:

hg sub -l

 -l --list       show subrepository and their states

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list