Hidden Commits in 4.3
Pierre-Yves David
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Fri Apr 21 14:17:29 EDT 2017
On 04/12/2017 12:16 AM, Jun Wu wrote:
> 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).
Rebase is maybe an easy case, but what about all the other actions
adding markers ? hg push, hg pull, hg evolve, hg unbundle, etc…?
To dig further around impact of new proposals on changeset evolution,
one can also checks and evaluate the concrete example on the Concept
wiki page[1]
I'm not trying to revive this branch on the discussion. And I think we
should focus on smaller steps first. However, since multiple people has
pointed out confusion around concrete examples, I wanted the highlight
and clarify the one already on the table to help people think about them
on their own.
(and yes, I'll look at your email in my inbox soon™)
[1] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/CEDConcept#concrete_examples
--
Pierre-Yves David
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list