In graft, record both source user/date and commit user/date

[Noam Yorav-Raphael]

I must say that it looks very complicated. I'm not interested in anything
fancy, I just want graft to work without me having to think every time
which compromise I prefer now.
On Oct 20, 2015 11:52 PM, "Matt Mackall" <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 23:44 +0300, Noam Yorav-Raphael wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I hate the --currentuser and --currentdate graft options. Options in
> > general are nuisance, but these are the worst, because I never know
> > whether
> > I should use them or not. On the one hand, many times it's more
> > useful to
> > know who actually created the change rather than who applied it. On
> > the
> > other hand, the responsibility for the change is mine, and I'm to be
> > blamed
> > for any merge errors, and the actual commit date is usually more
> > interesting than the original date when trying to figure out when a
> > change
> > was done.
> >
> > I suggest a simple solution: record both, and let the UI show the
> > user what
> > he's interested in.
> >
> > I suggest to add two extra attributes: source-user and source-date.
> > Then
> > user and date will record the actual user and date who committed the
> > changeset, and --currentuser and --currentdate will do nothing and
> > become
> > obsolete.
> >
> > There's another alternative: add attributes named commit-user and
> > commit-date, and make user and date record the source metadata. I
> > don't
> > like it because I think it's more consistent if user and date will
> > always
> > record who actually committed the changeset and when. I think of the
> > metadata of who originally created the diff and when as an extra,
> > which can
> > in fact be retrieved from the source changeset. I think the
> > inconsistency
> > becomes apparent if you consider the --user option. I have a shared
> > machine
> > at work, and we use the --user option to record who actually made a
> > change
> > (hgrc contains no username). If the user attribute on grafts records
> > the
> > source user, when grafting I'll have to use a --commit-user option
> > instead.
> > I think this shows the inconsistency of this alternative.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> We'll probably do something like this:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/sdt334wovmcrguwt
>
> ..which will create a complete audit trail.
>
> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20151022/29471746/attachment.html>