[PATCH 2 of 2 RFCv2] commands: introduce stash command
idankk86 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 18 06:10:41 CST 2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> On 15 févr. 2013, at 01:15, Idan Kamara wrote:
> > # HG changeset patch
> > # User Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com>
> > # Date 1360886982 -7200
> > # Node ID 06dd5eda17402c1e89a1aa212e340b146394fad8
> > # Parent d4c029076cf2213ad680a53dfd32b0886b2b7be0
> > commands: introduce stash command
> I'm very happy to see this happening. Having a sane and stable solution to
> shelve/unshelve is very important.
> I not sure that putting that as a core command is the right things to do.
> I would expect the command to be introduced in an extension before getting
> into core.
I guess that's fine since it relies on some fairly new features in core.
I just hope it won't require all sorts of glue code to work properly as an
How do others feel?
> > Stashes are unnamed (by default) and can be listed using --list and
> > inspected
> > with -s/--show.
> Is there real usage for unnamed stash? don't we want to force the user to
> provide a minimal description ?
Of course, it's a lot faster to do:
$ hg stash
$ hg up <where-i-really-wanted-to-be>
$ hg stash -p
Than to start thinking of an unused name.
> > Referring to stashes is done either by index (as shown in --list) or
> > name (if
> > one was given). If neither is specified, the most recent stash is
> > chosen.
> Most recent rules seems sane.
> > A stash is saved as a regular secret commit in the repository
> Note that once it is hidden, it does not needs to be secret. Its already
> excluded from exchanges.
Ok, so I'm slightly confused. Does secret imply hidden? Do I want it
to be hidden or secret?
> > and is identified by a bookmark under a special namespace '.hg/stash/'.
> Muh? what does stash as do do with bookmark? Can't you keep the label
> internally? (and expose them in revset if needed)
Keep it internally how? A dedicated file in .hg/? Why not use an
> > It is hidden from the user and isn't exchanged with other repositories.
> > When a stash is popped or deleted, it is stripped from the repository or
> > marked obsolete if obsolete is enabled.
> If you use obsolescence markers, you have to ensure that people can
> recreate the "same stash" with a different commit hash.
> In the same way it seems that you are storing stash commit as plain
> standard commit (including commit message content), this open the way to
> unfortunate collision between stash and standard changeset.
Interesting, I'll look into it.
> > It's currently not possible to stash when an mq patch is applied. Unless
> > mq
> > sometime in the future stops the use of strip (unlikely, mainly due to
> > lack of
> > interest in touching it), this won't change.
> Your check is too weak. User can qimport stash parent and qpop them. You
> need stronger check in MQ
Right.. I haven't really thoroughly tested how it behaves with MQ yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel