Request for rebaseif extension to be provided by default with rebase
rupert.thurner at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 07:10:11 CDT 2011
On May 24, 8:03 pm, Matt Mackall <m... at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 17:51 +0200, Sébastien Deleuze wrote:
> > Could we have a feedback from Mercurial core developers (since rebase
> > is a core extension) in order to know if a patch that would add
> > rebaseif functionnality to rebase extension, perhaps with minor
> > improvements like with internal:fail behaviour, would be reviewed if
> > sent on mercurial-de... at selenic.com ?
> I'm not terribly keen on the idea. It's a bit too reminiscent of fetch,
> which seems to mostly exist so that CVS refugees can put off actually
> understanding Mercurial long enough to make really big mistakes rather
> than small ones.
> One measure of this is that no expert users care about fetch in the
> slightest. It's just not part of their workflows or the workflows they
> recommend to their users. As such, the code has been neglected for
> I fear we'd have a similar situation with rebaseif: lots of new users
> using it, coming to the experts for help, and the experts saying "you
> shouldn't be using that".
> But if some expert users want to weigh in in favor of rebaseif, I'm
uhm ... a "typical expert user" might be already so brainwashed that
she thinks mq actually is a good thing to have instead of rebasing and
commit --ammend ... to formulate it really provocative. and tends to
forget that linus torvalds stopped using patch queues 10 years ago.
More information about the Mercurial