subrepo grand plan

Mads Kiilerich mads at kiilerich.com
Tue Oct 18 12:23:53 CDT 2011


On 10/14/2011 07:04 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Patrick Mezard came up with a good compromise: abort if subrepos are
> modified. This is great in that it doesn't break the coherency rule and
> it keeps people from hurting themselves and is frankly how I should have
> done it the first time around.
>
> The only reason I haven't made this the default behavior is it breaks
> backwards compatibility: people who actually want the convenience of
> recursive commit will now have no way to do it. I might actually be
> persuaded here but _no one's tried_. Instead people have tried to
> convince me that commit recursion should be off by default entirely,
> which is just obviously wrong and broken and not going to happen.

FWIW, not to say "I told you so" or start a pointless discussion, but:
http://markmail.org/message/32ilgxea23gnrxd6
http://markmail.org/message/ydus7yaiwv6sdt3f

That made me give up on subrepos and made me wait for one of us to 
change his mind ;-)


FWIW I still don't understand why those who want the convenience of 
automatic recursive commit use subrepos at all.


I also notice that many of the problems with insufficient recursion in 
other commands is a consequence of the automatic recursion in commit.

If the only reason it isn't changed is backward compatibility then why 
not create a new subrepo2 implementation - for example as an extension - 
and deprecate the old one?

/Mads


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list