Call for discussion: Phase names

Sean Farley sean at
Mon Jan 9 16:41:26 CST 2012

> And what is the rationale for that? That -also- seems obviously wrong.


> I see: the rationale is it saves transmit time for the edge case of
> "pushing changeset that are already present but secret on target".
> That's a fairly contrived scenario, and a poor reason to make this
> design choice. And it's almost certainly going to cause trouble.
> People today do things like 'hg id -r tip remote' to figure out what
> their incoming changeset group is going to look like, and if we don't
> actively hide these changesets from remote clients, we're breaking that.
> Similarly, if discovery says there are remote csets and we get an empty
> changegroup, we're going to upset people using 'hg summary --remote'.
> If we have to resend changesets because they happen to exist but are
> secret remotely, then I'm absolutely fine with that if it means we can
> have them actually be properly isolated.

Ah, ok, I finally get it now. I agree about not sharing the 'private /
secret / local' csets, but if that's the case, then what exactly is
ambiguous with using 'local' as the name? Unless you mean it clashes with
'local repo' naming?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list