Local clones and phases, mq (Re: [PATCH 1 of 5 phases] phases: exclude secret when doing a local clone)

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Jan 15, 2012 1:44 PM, "Martin Geisler" <mg at lazybytes.net> wrote:
>
> Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 02:42 +0100, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >> # HG changeset patch
> >> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr>
> >> # Date 1326299187 -3600
> >> # Node ID 3f56f39a5135f2253bdd8c14afe1e52a08b96ffc
> >> # Parent  c47d69ce5208d5b5cfd2fb2f0f1d7a2b4795fbf5
> >> phases: exclude secret when doing a local clone
> >>
> >> This is achieved by denying copy clone when any secret changeset exist.
>
> [...]
>
> > So enforcing phases here means local clones are a) less useful b)
> > slower and c) heavier than they could be.
> >
> > I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is here, and we can
> > probably revisit this in the future.
>
> I've also thought a bit about this problem and I prefer 'hg clone' to
> copy everything, including secret changesets. Let people use the --pull
> flag if they want a clone with what you've get over the wire.
>
> --
> Martin Geisler
>
> Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
>

What about clones from smb and cifs?

That's a very common way to share a repo over an intranet, at least in my
experience, particularly on windows. I think in that case it should behave
as pull (i.e. ignore the secret changesets). Otherwise that method of
sharing will not be viable anymore if you want to be able to use secret
phases.

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120115/04eca423/attachment.html>