[PATCH 00 of 18] Current advance on the states/phase topic
angel.ezquerra at gmail.com
Mon Oct 10 08:36:30 CDT 2011
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM, <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr> wrote:
> Alain Leufroy and I are currently working on a states/phases implementation for
> Here is a first series that display the current state (phase ?) of our work for
> preview and feedback. This series is not meant to be applied.
> If Matt Mackall feels this feature can make it into 2.0 we shall we able to
> provide resource to make it happen.
> * States have been renamed to phases to avoid confusion with Status
Personally I find the "phases" name a bit confusing, although I don't
know if there are much better names... what about "stages" as in the
different "stages" in the life cycle of a changeset?
> * We use phase names as few as possible until proper name are picked. This is to
> be changed in the final series for clarity. See the link bellow for details
> the revset filtering on phase suffer the most from this lack of name.
> Future works
> * implement phases boundary exchange and publish=False server: Please see my
> previous email on the list about it.
> * Adding a phase: <phasename> when phase != 0. It's pretty trivial but I prefer to wait for phasename to be choosed before altering all test with a new log output.
> * Behaviour of current extension will change:
> - rebase will refuse to work on public changeset without --keep.
> - mq will refuse to qimport public changeset.
> - mq managed changeset will be secret.
Will still be possible to qimport a public changeset using a --force
flag or similar?
More information about the Mercurial-devel