Implementation of Indexes Extension
natosha at unity3d.com
Wed Feb 15 07:04:12 CST 2012
2012/2/15 Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de>
> Hi Dennis,
> At Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:29:54 +0100,
> Dennis Brakhane wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Alexander Sauta <demosito at gmail.com>
> > > I've briefly looked through the description and didn't quite get why
> > > concept is better than mq. I mean, users like Mercurial for the
> absence of
> > There are two things the the index does better than MQ:
> > 1. The ability to add only certain changes to a file (qrefresh only
> > supports adding everything)
> I think there is qrecord for that.
Does qrecord work like the regular record extension and only operate on
full hunks? IMO, this is one really annoying thing about record -- that
there is no way (that I know of at least) to split hunks and only commit a
part of a hunk.
> > 2. The ability to incrementally increase or decrease the stuff that is
> > contained in the changes:
> About easy decreasing I don’t know (you need to ask someone who actually
> uses mq in his workflows). Increasing is simple: Just add a new patch to
> the queue and fold the patches in the end.
> If you want to actually track multiple patches, you are already beyond the
> capacity of the git index.
> Best wishes,
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
Build & Infrastructure Developer | Unity Technologies - Copenhagen
*E-Mail:* natosha at unity3d.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel