[PATCH 4 of 4] mq: introduce mq.check setting

Angel Ezquerra angel.ezquerra at gmail.com
Sat May 12 09:55:29 CDT 2012


On May 12, 2012 4:49 PM, "Patrick Mézard" <pmezard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 12/05/12 16:13, Patrick Mézard a écrit :
> > Le 12/05/12 15:00, Angel Ezquerra a écrit :
> >> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Patrick Mézard <patrick at mezard.eu>
wrote:
> >>> Le 12/05/12 10:37, Angel Ezquerra a écrit :
> >>>> On May 12, 2012 10:09 AM, "Matt Mackall" <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 01:12 +0200, Patrick Mezard wrote:
> >>>>>> # HG changeset patch
> >>>>>> # User Patrick Mezard <patrick at mezard.eu>
> >>>>>> # Date 1336774770 -7200
> >>>>>> # Node ID ed81cb27341e285d539617ba961f48c69dd18135
> >>>>>> # Parent  f4da2aeb000408aa54f59829acb092ec85914475
> >>>>>> mq: introduce mq.check setting
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nice, these are queued for default.
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm curious, why did you choose "check" as the name for this option?
It
> >>>> does not seem obvious to me...
> >>>
> >>> I have not given much thought to it. --check makes it sound like
qpush/qpop will closely "check" the local changes before deciding to bail
out or not. The setting is named after the command line option. Maybe this
is a mistake, if you have something better to suggest, feel free to submit
a patch, that is exactly the right time to change it.
> >>
> >> There is a --check (-c) option for update. Its definition is"
> >>
> >> -c --check     update across branches if no uncommitted changes
> >>
> >> It does not sound anything like this option (IMHO). In fact, it seems
> >> as if where quite the oposite. On the hg help update text it says:
> >>
> >> "    2. With the -c/--check option, the update is aborted and the
uncommitted
> >>        changes are preserved."
> >>
> >> That is, with the -c option, the update will be aborted if there are
> >> uncommitted changes, which is in fact the opposite of what this does,
> >> isn't it?
> >
> > You may be right.
> >
> >> what about --nocheck (-n)? After all this does the opposite thing of
> >> what --check does for update (if I undestand things correctly).
> >
> > [-n] is used for --dry-run so not this short option. Obviously, it is
difficult for me to consider --no-check, since the code actually checks
more things than the regular version (but is more lenient in its findings).
Also, --no-check feels a bit like "I am not checking anything, all bets are
off, I hope you had backups". But maybe.
> >
> > What other people think?
>
> Idan: --disjoint
> Me: --keep-changes or --keep
>
> --
> Patrick Mézard
>

I like --keep. I don't really understand --disjoint.

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120512/6ec4eba7/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list