question regarding mercurial

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 04.03.2008 19:22, Mohit Aron wrote:
> 2) It seems one can just modify files without telling mercurial about
> the intent to do so. And then 'hg status' has to figure out what all is
> being modified - possibly by doing a 'stat' on each file in the
> repository. While this might be ok for a local disk, this is terrible
> for workspaces on NFS.

Mercurial was designed to have the repositories [1] you work on on your
local computer -- after all it's a DVCS [2].

[1] http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Repository
[2] http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/DistributedSCM

> I think future mercurial releases should consider
> supporting a mode where one needs to explicitly do a 'hg edit filename'
> to tell mercurial that it is going to modify a file (same as perforce).

I've switched from Perforce to Mercurial in January and I do like Mercurial's
model. I really don't miss good old "p4 edit".

Some p4 users regularly do a "p4 edit" on whole subdirectories of their sources
and later "revert all unchanged files" (available in p4win and p4v).

A "hg edit" is very unlikely to happen anyway as that design decision
has been made.