[PATCH RFC] reflog: adds a reflog extension

Gregory Szorc gregory.szorc at gmail.com
Thu Oct 2 00:32:34 CDT 2014

On 10/1/14 10:16 PM, Durham Goode wrote:
> On 10/1/14, 7:56 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> On 10/1/14 6:45 PM, Durham Goode wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
>>> # Date 1412200597 25200
>>> #      Wed Oct 01 14:56:37 2014 -0700
>>> # Node ID 942be96848993cf7ab5ed529db9c1f39c6d43c30
>>> # Parent  939ce500c92a3dcc0e10815242361ff70a6fcae9
>>> reflog: adds a reflog extension
>> Very nice!
>> Do you think it's worth adding "local/working" terminology to help
>> distinguish it from the inevitable support for "remote reflogs" or
>> "store reflogs?"
> I'm not sure I understand what "remote reflogs" and "store reflogs" are?
> Could you provide examples?

"store reflogs" are essentially logs of when changesets were introduced 
to a store. Conceptually a log of when addchangegroup() is called. If 
deployed on a server, this is a "pushlog."

"remote reflogs" could be two things a) the "store reflogs" from a 
remote, existing locally b) a reflog listing heads, etc of remotes at 
various times. I was referring mostly to "a". "b" ventures into remote 
tracking territory. But it's arguably two sides of the same coin, as 
remote tracking can be done by injecting log events of pull operations 
into the locally-stored "remote reflog."

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list