Internal-changeset concept

Jun Wu quark at
Wed Apr 5 17:50:54 EDT 2017

Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-05 13:28:57 +0200:
> On 04/04/2017 09:06 PM, Jun Wu wrote:
> > Since most people want a separate hidden storage that handles wider cases, I
> > don't think this incomplete (internal-only) solution worths investment.
> They seems to be misunderstanding here. We should probably jump on a 
> Face to Face medium
> What I've been trying to point out here is that separating 
> internal-changesets from real-changesets has value (and even seems 
> necessary to build a good UI). And that phases seems a good choice to 
> make "internal" distinction. And I do not see you answering these two 
> points.

To answer these, the planned general-purposed, root-based, non-phase hidden
store will cover most use-cases of the internal-only, phase-based hidden.
And it's much more useful than your proposal.

I think it's unnecessary to have "internal changeset" concept separated from
the general-purposed hidden. But if the community do decide to implement the
internal changeset concept, I think that could be doable, but it should be
done in the new non-phase store, instead of adding a new phase.

Therefore, I'm -1 on adding a new phase in all cases, since there are better

> I understand you want another independent hiding mechanism for 
> change-set, This is not incompatible with the current proposal.
> As we do not seems to make progress with email, would you be available 
> to discuss this over Video Conference?
> Cheers,

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list