question regarding mercurial
adrian at cadifra.com
Wed Mar 5 04:51:38 CST 2008
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  you work on on your
local computer -- after all it's a DVCS .
> 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.
More information about the Mercurial