Newbie question

[Douglas Philips]

On or about 2009 Feb 2, at 4:43 AM, Hans Meine indited:
...
> Still, that's a weakness of bisect, not of the policy.  It can  
> imagine very
> well a way to mark changesets as "intended to be stable" (or vice  
> versa,
> as "intermediate, non-working state"), and let bisect work only on  
> stable
> revisions.

Or at least be able to tell bisect "Not this one, keep looking."
Which it might already be able to do (hg help bisect on Mercurial  
1.1.2 doesn't
seem to indicate that though I have a recollection that perhaps there  
is something queued...)

> (I am also in favor of frequent checkins also of non-working
> revisions, i.e. from automatic merging or search&replace which only  
> did 90%
> of the work but still need fixing.  This allows me to separate the
> interesting 10% of the changes - which probably took 90% of the time  
> - from
> the otherwise dominating automatic onces.)

Precisely.
hg commit -m "Part 1 of 2: Mechanical changes <for task X>."
hg commit -m "Part 2 of 2: Manual changes <for task X>. Corrected one  
overzealous mechanical change and added defrobnitzer."

or whatever.

--Doug