[PATCH 4 of 9 phases] mq: qimporting revision set them to secret

Kevin Bullock kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org
Thu Jan 19 11:53:36 CST 2012


On Jan 19, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:

> Moreover, I'm really not convinced mq changeset should be anything else that secret:
> 
> (1) It's much more simple: "mq changeset are secret" vs "mq changeset are secret
> most of the time but…"[1]
> 
> (2) we could ditch all the dedicated mq logic and fallback to "standard" phase
> related behavior.
> 
> (2) There is currently no way to exchange mq changeset with other people
> without blowing you mq state, so preventing it as much as possible, expecially
> on pull, if something we want.


There is also currently no way to exchange MQ changesets with other people without either deliberately publishing (in the pre-phases sense—putting it somewhere that someone can pull from it) an MQ repo, or a --force switch on push. I think minimally adding phaseyness to MQ will be an _improvement_ to the current safety level without disrupting anyone's working patterns.

Until we have garbage collection in place, those of us comfortable with history editing can use strip to get rid of draft changesets that get abandoned. Those who aren't, we can keep recommending that they only share draft changesets in throwaway clones. The recommended workflows don't change, but they do get incrementally safer, and the basis is laid for 2.2 to make phases really whizbang and cool for making a whole heap of things safer.

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120119/3a014966/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list