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

Idan Kamara idankk86 at gmail.com
Sat May 12 10:02:20 CDT 2012


On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Angel Ezquerra <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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.
>
It describes more accurately what's happening: allow
qpush if patched files and dirty files in wd are disjoint.

But --keep might be simpler and more familiar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120512/0e058b34/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list