[PATCH 00 of 18] Current advance on the states/phase topic

[Angel Ezquerra]

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
> mercurial-core.
>
> 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.
>
> Notes
> -------
>
> * 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
>  http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/StatesPlan#Naming
>
>  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?

Cheers,

Angel