First, incomplete, but promising stab at converting pbranch scenarios to "changeset evolution"

[Pierre-Yves David]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pierre-Yves David
> > I need to think a bit more about it (in particular the fact that we may not
> > have all step that lead from a changeset to another).
> >
> > I still believe that excluding "evol-relation" from the changeset hash is an
> > hard requirement for evolution.
> 
> Absolutely. My current line of thought is that the pbranches stay
> hidden, and whenever you amend a cset, it performs the update on its
> dedicated pbranch branch, and then creates a new current version of
> the patch as a regular changeset, properly based on the parent of the
> amended changeset.
> 
> -parren

Look nice but I'm afraid the approach collapse when it comes to splitting and
folding Changeset. Definitely worth thinking about it anyway.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David

http://www.logilab.fr/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20110901/e406e63f/attachment.pgp>