Hidden Commits in 4.3

Jun Wu quark at fb.com
Tue Apr 11 18:16:16 EDT 2017


Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-11 22:29:15 +0200:
> [...]
> 
> Mixing it with local only elements will not work. They are tons of 
> simple case where we won't be able to determine a simple and consistent 
> behavior for it. Even the local case can quickly raise shortcoming to 
> the above proposal:
> 
>    When an orphan changeset gets hidden by evolution, what should we do
>    with its obsolete parent? Was it visible because of the orphan or
>    because the user actively "unhide" it some time ago?

This is not hard to answer. "rebase" with some auto flag will hide the
parent if it has no visible children, recursively.  "rebase" with explicit
"-s" and "-d" could choose to not be smart about parents (it may also
choose to be smart with some non-default config set). In either case, if the
user is not satisfied with the behavior, they can always override it
manually by a follow-up hide or unhide command.

I don't think this qualifies as an example about how things are broken
because the behavior is fairly reasonable. I see it as a general inquiry
about the new behavior. I'm happy to answer more inquires like this.

Besides, it's impossible to hide a commit when one of its children is
children is visible. Ryan didn't make this very clear.


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list