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

[Didly]

On May 13, 2012 10:27 AM, "Patrick Mézard" <patrick at mezard.eu> wrote:
>
> Le 13/05/12 02:00, Didly a écrit :
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Faheem Mitha <faheem at email.unc.edu>
wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 May 2012 16:48:54 +0200, Patrick Mézard <pmezard at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>>> What other people think?
> >>>
> >>> Idan: --disjoint
> >>> Me: --keep-changes or --keep
> >>
> >> FWIW, I like --disjoint. It is a more precise description of what is
> >> happening. Also, there is an open bug about this, reported by me. I
> >> think Idan tried to fix this once, but it didn't make it.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, how about --local-changes?
> >>
> >>                                                     Regards, Faheem
> >
> > Wouldn't it be even better to have --keep-local-changes, or its
> > shorter version, --keep? :-)
>
> Unfortunately, --keep is already used by qdeleted and qfold to say
"preserve the patch files". qfold may be a candidate for a --check option
(djc reported a bug where he wanted a --force so...).
>
> I will probably go for --keep-changes then.
>
> --
> Patrick Mézard

That's even more explicit which is great. Will it still have a short
version? I'd so, which will it be?

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120513/82b0bebc/attachment.html>