[PATCH RFC/WIP] introduce stash command

[Idan Kamara]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> # HG changeset patch
> >> # User Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com>
> >> # Date 1338643506 -10800
> >> # Node ID 6e5f3f08d11199f5893b501dfa8096979675314f
> >> # Parent  357e6bcfb61973478bfbe4cf5652026a6bda7ef7
> >> introduce stash command
> >
> > As the title says, this patch adds a stash command that is aimed
> > to replace the various broken extensions and/or use of mq as an
> > alternative.
> >
> > In terms of functionality it's pretty much complete. The UI is not
> > perfect yet and I'm open to suggestions (e.g. --list format).
> >
> > The only thing that is currently unimplemented is hiding of stashes
> > so they're not exposed to the user (which is pretty integral though).
>
> Thanks for this; it looks great :-) As for the UI, should the stashed
> commits be a new phase? If so, then there could be a new phase called
> 'hidden' (bad short option :-( ... maybe 'concealed'?) that would do
> just that: not expose them to the user. Otherwise, we could not have a
> new phase and use the already existing 'secret' changesets to hide
> from the user?
>
> I don't know how I feel about either idea, though.

Well, that's the idea. There was some work on putting commits
in a hidden state so they're not exposed, but it's not complete yet.

Then it might be logical for a hidden commit to be implicitly
secret (afaik those are currently unshared).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120603/cc5b7d5d/attachment.html>