Dealing consistently with subrepositories
mpm at selenic.com
Wed Mar 30 09:08:22 CDT 2011
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 21:29 -0400, greg at gerg.ca wrote:
> On 29 March 2011, Martin Geisler said:
> > This defines a number of equivalence classes and I think we came up with
> > (Olaf, please correct me if I'm wrong):
> Disclaimer: I have not yet used subrepos. I'm just keeping my eye on
> them. Given that, this approach seems sensible.
> > * status <-> summary
> > I think of 'hg summary' as a condensed version of 'hg status'.
> I would tiptoe quietly away from 'hg summary'. It's really a
> condensed version of parents, branch, status, (sometimes) qseries and
> (optionally) incoming/outgoing. Putting all of those commands into
> one equivalence class will lead you to a world of pain.
> Also, my gut instinct is that the default default should be
> non-recursive. Commands should only recurse by default if there is a
> *damn* good reason for doing so. push and update are the obvious
Commit must also be in this class. Atomic snapshots are a bedrock design
principle, subrepos are not an exception.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
More information about the Mercurial-devel