Some initial impressions of phases

Jason Harris jason at jasonfharris.com
Tue Jan 24 07:29:31 CST 2012


On Jan 24, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:48:55PM +0100, Jason Harris wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:57:16AM +0100, Martin Geisler wrote:
>>>> Jason Harris <jason at jasonfharris.com> writes:
>>>>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:03 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>>>>> Jason Harris <jason at jasonfharris.com> writes:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Point 11.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A local clone resets the phase to public. It shouldn't.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Debated elsewhere, many arguments pro and against exist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I believe it's going to cause problems in practice. Local clones
>>>>> for experimentation are going to be hampered with having to manually
>>>>> adjust the phase for each clone.
>>>> 
>>>> It was my understanding from the beginning that draft changesets are
>>>> meant to be shared and that they were meant to be shared *as draft*.
>>>> This is why I think they should remain drafts when you clone. Public
>>>> servers can set publishing=True so that everything pushed there becomes
>>>> public.
>>> 
>>> We already have a well defined concept to say "I wan't draft to stay draft":
>>> 
>>>   http://selenic.com/hg/rev/218ec96c45d7
>> 
>> Sorry maybe I missed it in reading that, but you meant "I want draft to stay draft" right?
>> If so how do I do this?
> 
> yes s/wan't/want/
> 
>> Do you mean that if I set
>> [phases]
>> publish = 0
>> 
>> or publish =1, or publish = 2 in my hgrc then a local clone is meant to preserve the phase?
>> If so this doesn't happen.
> 
> You read it wrong: You setting up a non-publishing repo using.
> 
> [phases]
> publish=False
> 
>> Point 12:
>> Note of course we should use private, draft, public, instead of 0, 1, 2.
> 
> But we use "true" and "false" (and other synonyms)

Actually I had made a mistake in my hgrc file. I had used [phase] like
the command rather than [phases]. With setting:

[phases]
publish=False

I can now do local clones which preserve phases!! That is **much** better. Thanks!


>> Point 13:
>> BTW for the documentation there is no help in the hgrc about phase.
>> Eg 'hg help hgrc' doesn't mention anything about phase settings.
> 
> breaking news: Phase documentation is still a stumb and something to be heavily
> working on during the freeze.  Any help is welcome on this side.

I got it the first time :) I am pointing out documentation bugs. (Note I can't fix them in any
case even if I had the time (which I don't), since I don't know / understand phases
in detail.)

>>>   (And We have valid reason not to turn it on by default)
>>> 
>>> We don't have any way now to detect a branch clone is intended to be private to
>>> the dev only.
>>> 
>>> I'll keep recommand the existing, simple and well defined way to have the
>>> expected behavior. I probably won't change my mind[1] until someone came with a
>>> meaninful proposal on this matter and a simple alteration of clone behavior.
>> 
>> It might be simple, but it's highly highly inconvenient for working with clones.
>> This is really a case where we should separate what is easy to for implementation
>> and what works well for users.
>> 
>> At least there needs to be *some* way to get the behavior that most users will find
>> the most useful.
> 
> There is a way. Setting your development repositories as "private" (not public,
> not publishing). This is simple and *available in 2.1* way to do that.
> 
>> Also I gave the meaningful proposal of allowing configuration in the hgrc like:
> 
> (1) This proposal does not cover detecting a private branch clone.
> 
> (2) This proposal will not be in 2.1 and I do not think the freeze is the right
>    time to discuss hypothetical proposal like this one.
> 
> note: As said before, this proposal looks interesting (but out of topic and timing).

Cool...

>> Even if it's not the default there needs to be some way to do this. (Once there is
>> we can argue about what the default should be :) )
> 
> Again. There *is* already a way. And there is already arguing on this topic.
> Look at the commit description again.


If you mean: http://selenic.com/hg/rev/218ec96c45d7 then that's really inadequate.
(Ie It might be a good hint to the person that implemented the system :) but that's all).
in the code (and not the textual description) there is:

+ cat > .hg/hgrc << EOF
+  > [phases]
+  > publish=0
+  > EOF

But there is no indication of what that does at all...

But in any case, it means with an hgrc setting the user can preserve his/her phases
when working with repositories locally! This should be displayed prominently in
the documentation when it is written :)

That is one of the really big main sticking points I cared about. (Well that and
documentation and some name choices... :)  (I can post a reduced list of which
points I still think are problematic in light of the recent comments if you want...))

Cheers,
   Jason


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list