subrepo grand plan
mpm at selenic.com
Wed Oct 19 11:37:04 CDT 2011
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 09:42 +0000, David.Sedlock at lantiq.com wrote:
> > -----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?
> 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
You haven't been listening carefully enough. There are THREE choices:
1) the current default behavior
'a naked commit ... recurses'
2) Patrick's commitsubrepos=False behavior
'a naked commit ... aborts if subrepos are modified'
3) the thing that everyone asks for (commit only the main repo)
'a naked commit ... commits everything but subrepos'
The quote above is rules out choice 3 and says nothing about choice 2.
Choice 3 is bad because it's a partial commit and partial commits break
the build. This is axiomatic.
But choice 2 is not a commit:
> > 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?
It's controlled by a config setting.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
More information about the Mercurial-devel