new history punching code

Chris Mason chris.mason at
Wed Nov 15 15:08:23 CST 2006

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 08:10:15PM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Chris Mason:
> > I've revived my history punching patch, you can pull it from here:
> > 
> >
> I just tried to merge with the curent tip and I had to manually merge 3/4
> files.  Do you think you could maintain it with respect to tip?  I'm not
> sure of what I choose when merging with kdiff3 so I may have made a
> mistake.

Testing and merging the punching code is non-trivial, so until we hash
out exactly how we want it to work, I don't plan on updating it

My main concern with the punching code is that it adds complexity just
to save space.  It doesn't reduce the working set for O(N) operations,
and I think we may need a better partial history type patch to
accomplish that.

> Context is, after a lenghty discussion with fellow FreeBSD committers at
> the EuroBSDCon summit just before the conference, the need to have a
> "obliterrate" kind-of feature just got higher in the FreeBSD priority
> list...
> We have had previous requests from lawyers (the *etris and b*ggle cases)
> to remove actual code the source tree so even though it is much more
> difficult to have such a feature in modern VCS using hashes for everything
> and linking previous changesets data.

Since the punching code leaves the changeset in place, and may have to
keep certain revisions where a punch was requested to satisfy push/pull
requirements, I doubt it is a valid tool to resolve legal issues.


More information about the Mercurial mailing list