Local vs Server (phase names and clones)
jason at jasonfharris.com
Sun Jan 15 18:52:19 CST 2012
The discussion on phases raised a question for me. (Again sorry if this is clear to others and I just missed it in the ongoing discussions...)
The question is in reference to local versus server in Mercurial. I gather that with secrete changesets we will now be making a formal distinction between local pushing / pulling and pushing / pulling to a server. Is this correct?
I also gather then that "local" pushing / pulling would transfer private / secrete changesets. But this transfer would not occur to a "server" Is this correct?
However this formal distinction would seem hard to enforce. Eg what happens if someone mounts a server by FUSE or something similar. So it's a server but it's local, etc...
If we make this distinction are we going to propagate this distinction to other parts of Mercurial? Eg with a local clone I still find it annoying that the repositories hgrc file is not transferred, whereas the hgrc is copied if you simply duplicate the repository on the local file system. Thus I would assume if we are making a distinction between local and server we could transfer the repositories hgrc file when doing local clones. But then again I could well be missing something?
More information about the Mercurial-devel