subrepo grand plan

[David.Sedlock at lantiq.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Mackall [mailto:mpm at selenic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 6:58 PM
> To: Sedlock David (LQKG IT RDS)
> Cc: mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> Subject: RE: subrepo grand plan
> 
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:15 +0000, David.Sedlock at lantiq.com wrote:
> > Matt, many thanks for the clear reply. BTW, I believe in the
> > "benevolent dictatorship". So let me test my understanding:
> >
> > Consequently, the low level option that provides a non-recursive scope
> > for commit will be removed. ("We absolutely cannot have a naked 'hg
> > commit' commit everything but subrepos.")
> 
> What option is that? 

commitsubrepos.

This is the option we wanted Martin to use so we could get consistent behavior of commit/status/diff.

The existence of this option cannot be consistent with your statement "We absolutely cannot have a naked 'hg commit' commit everything but subrepos."

> It's critical to understand that Patrick's abort option prevents you
> from sinning by accident:
> 
>  $ hg commit
>  abort: uncommitted changes in subrepo foo
> 
> ..which is what makes it an acceptable compromise.

This would be useful for us. What is the status of this? Is it controlled by an option?

Regards,
David