Subrepos and diff command

[Patrick Mézard]

Le 21/10/11 17:56, Eric ROSHAN EISNER a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 07:30, Patrick Mézard <pmezard at gmail.com <mailto:pmezard at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I have some questions after looking at "Issue3056 - hg diff/status - subrepo files not listed on revision where subrepo was added". With the following setup (one modified subrepo being added):
> 
>      $ hg init sub
>      $ echo b > sub/b
>      $ hg -R sub add sub/b
>      $ hg -R sub ci -m "addb"
>      $ hg init repo
>      $ cd repo
>      $ hg clone ../sub sub
>      $ echo sub = sub > .hgsub
>      $ hg add .hgsub
>      $ echo b >> sub/b
> 
>     1- Should "hg diff -S" display the changes to sub/b ?
> 
>     I guess it should, it is the whole point of -S.
> 
>     2- Say we commit this change as revision 0. Should "hg diff -S --change 0" display the changes to sub/b ?
> 
>     Yes for consistency with [1].
> 
>     No because it is undefined : we know the subrepo was introduced at revision 1, we do not know the use start adding it while being at revision 0 and committed it recursively.
> 
>     3- Say we modify "sub" 3 times with as many recursive commits. Should "hg diff -S -r null:3" display the changes to sub/b and which ones ?
> 
> 
> The transparent thing to do is show the file diffs as if these files were directly tracked by the main repo. Since these files were unknown in rev 0 and known in rev 3, diff -S should show them all adding their full contents from /dev/null. Before you wrote this I had been under the impression that diff -S and status -S already did this.
> 
> Either way the subdiffs are useless for patching purposes (as any new commit made with them will conflict with .hgsubstate).

Then how do you address [1]? Display a diff of sub/b against /dev/null instead of the actual change in the subrepo?

If you do that, you do not know what you are committing in the subrepo unless you ask the subrepo yourself.

--
Patrick Mézard