Subrepos and diff command
pmezard at gmail.com
Fri Oct 21 11:07:31 CDT 2011
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 .
> 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 ? 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.
More information about the Mercurial-devel