Call for discussion: Phase names

Matt Mackall mpm at
Mon Jan 9 17:36:44 CST 2012

On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 16:41 -0600, Sean Farley wrote:
> >
> > And what is the rationale for that? That -also- seems obviously wrong.
> >
> Agreed.
> > 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?

Draft csets are (generally speaking) local as well. Nothing about the
word 'local' says 'not only are these csets not shared YET, but they're
not even allowed to be shared'. Private/secret/restricted do convey

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list