[PATCH 6 of 7] strip: introduce a soft strip option

Pulkit Goyal 7895pulkit at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 10:25:49 EST 2019


On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:53 PM Pulkit Goyal <7895pulkit at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:14 AM Boris Feld <boris.feld at octobus.net> wrote:
>
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Boris Feld <boris.feld at octobus.net>
>> # Date 1539697680 -7200
>> #      Tue Oct 16 15:48:00 2018 +0200
>> # Node ID a82909c0da7cc07ea1a46690ffc08e45ebc14af6
>> # Parent  65488c7d2e933cdb2ab1c36b3887a8a67a24fc60
>> # EXP-Topic archived-phase-UX
>> # Available At https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/
>> #              hg pull https://bitbucket.org/octobus/mercurial-devel/ -r
>> a82909c0da7c
>> strip: introduce a soft strip option
>>
>> This is the first user-accessible way to use the archived phase
>> introduced in
>> 4.8. This implements a feature implemented during the Stockholm sprint.
>> The
>> archived phase behave as stripping, changesets are no longer accessible,
>> but
>> pulling/unbundling them will make then reappear. The only notable
>> difference
>> is that unlike hard stripping, soft stripping does not affect obsmarkers.
>>
>> Adding flag to strip is a good way to provide access to the feature
>> without
>> taking a too big risk on the final UI we want.
>>
>> The next changeset will make use of the archived phase for history
>> rewriting
>> command. However, having a way to manually trigger the feature first
>> seemed
>> better.
>>
>> Using the archived phase is faster and less traumatic for the repository.
>>
>
I looked at test-strip.t and was unable to found anything specific to strip
implementation. Can we have a case for soft-stripping in that test?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20190103/57149b30/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list