question regarding mercurial

[Mohit Aron]

>
> Some questions:
> 1. Your repository is on an NFS mounted disk and hence the ".hg"
> folder too is on the remote disk?


Yes.


>
> 2. Suppose, we come up with an extension "hg edit", should it store
> the edit information in the remote ".hg" or create it on the local
> disk (make it configurable)
>


Making it configurable would probably provide the best of both worlds. But
by default, I expect that my ".hg" directory would be on NFS too. The reason
is that I want to version my own changes, and once my code is ready, I'll
get it reviewed by another devloper and then push to the remote repository.
Before pushing to the remote repository, I'd prefer to have the versioning
information in .hg to be safe -  hence I'll keep the .hg on NFS too.



>
> A simple hack I can think of:
> 1. Have a shell alias (or a new hg command) to write the edited file
> path into a file
> 2. On hg commit, read the file with edited file paths and commit only
> those files (by passing the files as arguments to the hg commit)
>
> would the above approach work for you?
>


Yes, it will. Seems pretty simple, isn't it ?  I'd definitely prefer to have
a new hg command rather than a shell alias for better integration with the
rest of 'hg'.

One more facility I'd like is that the files controlled by mercurial should
be read-only by default - they should become writable only when I do a 'hg
edit' on them. That way, I don't accidentally modify any file unless I do a
'hg edit' on it. This is also similar to what perforce does.


- Mohit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20080305/c33e9869/attachment.htm