Local vs Server (phase names and clones)

Pierre-Yves David pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr
Tue Jan 17 08:09:59 CST 2012


On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 02:04:53PM +0100, Jason Harris wrote:
> 
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> 
> > Quick answer:
> > 
> > * We don't have sensible way to know if a local repo is server or not.
> 
> But this is *really* what is needed.

Really ? We are already introducing the distinction between publishing repo and
non-publishing repo in 2.1. I saw it as a big step forward and do not fell the
need to dig further in such direction for now.

> Can't you just see if at first approximation if it has a http:// in front of it?

No, a lot a place have local centrel server too (In particular big company).

> More generally I would imagine you would have some hgrc configuration:
> 
> [phases]
> private.permit.exchange.localfiles = file://*
> private.permit.exchange.myPrivateServer = http://www.myPrivateServer.com/*
> private.permit.pull.myCompanyServer = http://www.myCompanyServer.com/*
> private.forbid.exchange.others = *
> 
> draft.permit.exchange.localflies = file://*
> draft.permit.exchange.servers = http://*
> 
> publish.permit.exchange.localflies = file://*
> publish.permit.exchange.servers = http://*
> 
> general form would be:
> 
> <phase>.<permit | forbid>.<exchange | pull | push | clone>.<some-unique-name> = spec

This an interresting concept that goes much more further than phase and won't
be implemented for 2.1 (which is currently chilling). I'll probably back-up a
well designed implementation of this kind of context if you are willing to push
one later.

And again, this could probably be implemented as an extension.

> > * With the change in discovery code, there will probably be more extension aiming to prevent exchange some changeset with a finer grain than phase. Those extension will probably not use phase directly.
> > 
> > See the other thread for more details.
> 
> I must have missed it can you give me the thread reference again in either MarkMail or some other archived email. I am sorry about this I really tried to follow the details and not miss any of them...

You should have received this email by now

http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2012-January/037295.html

-- 
Pierre-Yves David

http://www.logilab.fr/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120117/9c609eb5/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list