[PATCH 0 of 5] histedit: fix some problems

FUJIWARA Katsunori foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp
Wed Sep 4 08:17:27 CDT 2013

At Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:50:44 -0400,
Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 04:41:47PM +0900, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> > This patch series fixes some problems around histedit extension.
> >
> > For patch #5, I chose editing only outgoings which are ancestors of
> > working directory, when there are some roots in outgoings. But should
> > I choose aborting in such situation ?
> Not sure what you're asking here, can you rephrase and/or provide a diagram?

I'm just afraid that aborting "hg histedit" was suitable for Mercurial
philosophy than automatic choice of target revisions, if there are
multiple roots in outgoing revisions.

For example, if it could be assumed that users often misunderstand
about outgoing (and histedit target) revisions when there are multiple
roots in them, convenience of target revision choice shouldn't be so
important. "hg histedit" should be aborted to avoid confusion.

I think that the automatic choice is convenient and reasonable, but
it may not be so from the other point of views.

[FUJIWARA Katsunori]                             foozy at lares.dti.ne.jp

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list