Experimental implementation of liquid-hg

Henrik Stuart hg at hstuart.dk
Tue Jan 18 14:00:00 CST 2011


On 2011-01-18 20:48, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
>> The whole point of liquid is for people to avoid accidentally
>> modifying or deleting or rebasing publicly-visible changesets.
> 
> I also discussed this with Pierre-Yves and the others at the Zurich
> mini-sprint, but let me bring it up here again: do you think rebasing
> publically-visible changesets is a big problem?
> 
> It's an honest question, I don't feel that we get many questions here or
> on IRC of the form "Oh no, I just rebased something after pushing it to
> my server! What should I do?"
> 
> In other words, while I can see how it is nice to make it more
> well-defined what can and what cannot be changed, I don't see this as
> the interesting problem since I don't really see it as a problem.
> 
> Maybe it is just because people have been burnt in the past and are now
> very careful with using rebase? If so, then this kind of infrastructure
> makes more sense since it would let people be more bold when rebasing,
> knowing that Mercurial will stop them from being stupid.

It's not uncommon that people rebase already pushed things "out there"
(aka in the corporate world), so I'd prefer Matt's approach of
supporting rebase on frozen changesets only if you --force.

-- 
Kind regards,
  Henrik Stuart


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list