D3694: shelve: use more accurate description in conflict marker

[lothiraldan (Boris Feld)]

lothiraldan added a comment.


  In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3694#58409, @durin42 wrote:
  
  > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3694#58369, @lothiraldan wrote:
  >
  > > > How much work is this, do you have any idea?
  > >
  > > The first option (adding "reserved" phase) should be very quick to implement. It might need minor adjustment for performance but I don't expect many.
  > >
  > > The second option (changing all algorithm to handle the gap) is more work since about all algorithm touching phases in Core and extensions assume they can be handled as a simple list.
  > >
  > > So I would pick the first option.
  >
  >
  > When I was discussing this with spectral the idea of an `archived` phase came up. The fact that we've got two new phases at top of mind in the space of a week convinces me we should reserve *much* more than just one or two slots in the phase numbering space. I'd really like to get this work landed, so I'd be happy to help.
  >
  > (I'm off work next week, but could probably offer some time the following week.)
  
  
  I think the internal phase implementation details just need to be ironed out, we mostly agreed about having a certain number of reserved phases, am I right?
  
  In the meantime, I think we should land this refactoring series while we finish preparing the internal phase one, does that sounds good to you?

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3694

To: lothiraldan, #hg-reviewers
Cc: durin42, mercurial-devel