[PATCH 0 of 5] remove

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 2011-05-23 21:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:33 +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>> On 2011-05-23 21:26, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:07 +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>>>> On 2011-05-23 20:25, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 16:56 +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>>>>>> see patches
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I can't really see what's motivating this, can you elucidate
>>>>> please?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to look at the patches: No.
>>>
>>> I did look, was confused, asked for clarification, and got rude
>>> response. If you'd rather that I drop your patches than spend a couple
>>> sentences explaining why we should want them, then I suppose that's your
>>> choice. Moving on..
>>>
>>
>> All I tried to say is, that you have to look at the individual patches.
>> I don't think I was rude?
> 
> Is this a collection of unrelated patches? It appears not, but I can't
> quite work out what the goal is. There's some stuff here that appears
> iffy to me, knowing what the larger goal is will help me evaluate it.
> 

Patch 2 depends on patch 1.

Can you look at patch 2 and see if that makes any sense for you? I wrote
a comment to that.

Patch 3 removes function forget of workingctx, which is obsoleted by
patches 1 and 2.

Patch 4 is not strictly related, but I happened to have that done after
3. As I wrote in the comment there: it moves the unlinking of the files
to under the lock.

Patch 5 is not particularly related, it just improves the help text if
of the 'hg remove' command.

The whole series deals with 'hg remove'. That's why I sent them together
in a series.

I'm sorry if this all looks a bit confusing. Perhaps I was a bit too
lazy and I understand looking at all these patches all the time is
probably getting boring.

I thought that these patches looked simple enough to be reviewed in a
few minutes.