RFC: Phase UI (revset, phase command and others)

Augie Fackler raf at durin42.com
Wed Dec 28 22:53:23 CST 2011


On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 08:49 +0100, Gilles Moris wrote:
>>> I find this spare number a quite interesting topic. But I did not processed
>>> enough high priority item about phase to care about it yet. If you want to
>>> drive a discussion on the topic of "what more phase could be useful for and
>>> what are the draw back", go for it ! I'll try to feed it.
>>> 
>> 
>> No, I do not have any additional phase in mind. Just the idea that we may be 
>> into trouble if we find an interresting intermediate phase concept after 2.1.
> 
> If we do, we'll almost certainly have much bigger problems than simply
> fitting it between the existing phase numbers. So I think spacing out
> the phase numbers (in 1980s BASIC style!) has a 95% chance of being
> pointless over-engineering that will get in our way later.

Could we avoid exposing the phase numbers? That'd get us the best of both worlds, right? What does exposing phase numbers in the public UI (through the templater) get us?


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list