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

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I see. That makes sense, but as you say --keep is probably easier to
understand even if it is not as accurate.

Do you guys want me to send a patch or will you change it?

Angel