Storage format for remotenames.

Augie Fackler raf at
Fri Nov 10 18:04:27 EST 2017

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 18:03, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at> wrote:
>> Would it make sense to try and come to an agreement on a single format we can use for node->label storage? It's come up in the bookmarks binary part patches as well...
> Perhaps. But that could quickly devolve into such topics as:
> * Unified vs per-domain storage
> * Label specific versus generic node metadata storage

I mostly meant around a record format that would let us map node->label, but maybe I'm being ambitious even on that front. :/

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list