Desired use case for obsmarkers / visibility

Augie Fackler raf at durin42.com
Wed Nov 15 14:15:44 EST 2017


> On Nov 15, 2017, at 14:12, Jun Wu <quark at fb.com> wrote:
> 
> Excerpts from Augie Fackler's message of 2017-11-15 11:23:25 -0500:
>> I don't disagree, but it's *extremely* rare experimentally on hg. I'd
>> encourage running a similar analysis on your own repositories to get a
>> sense of how many prunes have ever been meaningfully exchanged. I bet it's
>> a fraction of a percent of markers, and happens extremely rarely overall.
> 
> I think there are 2 kinds of "prune"s that might be treated differently:
> 
>  o C                       o C
>  |                         |
>  x B (B -> (), parent A)   | x B (B -> (), parent A)
>  |                         |/
>  o A                       o A
> 
> When pulling "C", I guess it's reasonable to pull the marker for the left
> case.  The right case might want an option.

I think the left case is only viable because the change already doesn't disappear due to the anchoring of C. I think it's still plausible (likely even?) that the user will want to revise B and continue with it, or will otherwise prune the change locally if it ended up being a dead end.

> 
> Practically, it's doable by ignoring the "parent" field in markers.



More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list