[PATCH v2] push: warn after pushing draft changesets with tags
nathan12343 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 15:26:42 EDT 2016
So I guess I'm getting a little lost here.
Is the conclusion here that my patch isn't the way we want to go, and
instead we should implement something that either marks the commit public
once the tag is created or does so on push.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Sean Farley <sean at farley.io> wrote:
> Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> writes:
> > On 03/12/2016 12:58 AM, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:32:54AM -0800, Sean Farley wrote:
> >>> Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com> writes:
> >>>> # HG changeset patch
> >>>> # User Nathan Goldbaum <ngoldbau at illinois.edu>
> >>>> # Date 1457664319 21600
> >>>> # Thu Mar 10 20:45:19 2016 -0600
> >>>> # Node ID 189ea0e68f3c50c28bbb060c8ef59beef43c8a8d
> >>>> # Parent 88738948f5d27cebe673ceb655c6161c34efda7d
> >>>> push: warn after pushing draft changesets with tags
> >>> I don't know if a warning is going to be enough. After dealing with
> >>> users over the last year, I'm inclined to think that 'hg tag foo'
> >>> just mark the tagged commit as public (or possibly the signed commit).
> >> I have a foggy memory that 'hg tag' was supposed to make the tagged
> >> revision public. That could be nuts though, as the context I remember
> >> it in was one of the sprints in Denmark.
> > This have been mention multiple time but we never really made our mind
> > on this. Mistake will taking are not unheard of and it is useful to be
> > able to fix them while still local only.
> Perhaps. My fear is that delaying stuff until push time (in general) is
> too late. I always get bitten in the ass by accidentally pushing to a
> publishing repo and now everything locally is public. Perhaps at the
> sprint we can talk about some warning flags and also about tagged
> > But publishing anything tagged make sense and also help the issue of
> > repository that all purely local and grow full draft for ever.
> > The current motivation for this is that we don't do any rewriting of the
> > tag itself when a tagged changeset is rewritten. I wonder to what extend
> > this would be easy to introduce.
> I've experimented with this during converts. I think it's tricky /
> fragile but might be possible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial-devel