69 messages in com.selenic.mercurial-develRe: RFC: dealing with dead, anonymous...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Geisler | May 7, 2010 10:33 am | |
| Dirkjan Ochtman | May 7, 2010 10:37 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 7, 2010 10:59 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 7, 2010 11:14 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 7, 2010 11:46 am | |
| Dirkjan Ochtman | May 7, 2010 1:14 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 8, 2010 12:10 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 8, 2010 1:31 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 8, 2010 1:34 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 8, 2010 1:48 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 8, 2010 2:09 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 8, 2010 3:50 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 8, 2010 1:10 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 9:33 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 1:49 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 1:49 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 1:49 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 1:49 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 1:49 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 9, 2010 2:36 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 9, 2010 2:43 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 9, 2010 2:45 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 9, 2010 2:47 pm | |
| Martin Geisler | May 9, 2010 4:11 pm | |
| Dirkjan Ochtman | May 9, 2010 10:50 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 11:31 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 9, 2010 11:49 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 10, 2010 12:04 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 10, 2010 12:37 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 10, 2010 12:37 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 10, 2010 12:38 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 10, 2010 12:58 am | |
| Sune Foldager | May 11, 2010 2:02 am | |
| Sune Foldager | May 11, 2010 2:08 am | |
| Sune Foldager | May 11, 2010 2:14 am | |
| Sune Foldager | May 11, 2010 2:20 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 11, 2010 3:53 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | May 11, 2010 3:56 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 12:52 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 5:17 am | |
| Augie Fackler | May 12, 2010 7:35 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 12, 2010 8:33 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 12, 2010 8:34 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 12, 2010 8:34 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 12, 2010 8:55 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 12, 2010 2:33 pm | |
| Gilles Moris | May 13, 2010 7:31 am | |
| Matt Mackall | May 13, 2010 1:48 pm | |
| Martin Geisler | May 17, 2010 1:09 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 17, 2010 1:22 am | |
| Rafael Villar Burke (Pachi) | May 17, 2010 2:07 am | |
| Augie Fackler | May 17, 2010 5:57 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 17, 2010 6:56 am | |
| Augie Fackler | May 17, 2010 7:46 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 17, 2010 8:13 am | |
| Augie Fackler | May 17, 2010 8:41 am | |
| Gilles Moris | May 19, 2010 8:00 am | |
| Martin Geisler | May 19, 2010 3:53 pm | |
| Martin Geisler | May 19, 2010 3:58 pm | |
| Augie Fackler | May 24, 2010 5:15 am | |
| Peter Arrenbrecht | May 26, 2010 6:23 am | |
| Rafael Fernández López | Jun 3, 2010 5:35 am | |
| Peter Arrenbrecht | Jun 3, 2010 6:14 am | |
| Martin Geisler | Jun 4, 2010 12:18 am |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: dealing with dead, anonymous feature branches | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Martin Geisler (mg...@aragost.com) | |
| Date: | May 17, 2010 8:13:02 am | |
| List: | com.selenic.mercurial-devel | |
Augie Fackler <duri...@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Martin Geisler <mg...@aragost.com> wrote:
Augie Fackler <duri...@gmail.com> writes:
We run the risk of losing tags if we stop transferring some branches.
I see... You must be talking about the situation where we have
[A] --- [B] --- [T] --- [C] \ [X] --- [Y] --- <Z>
and T is the changeset that adds a tag for Y and Z is dead. If I clone this, I will only get A, B, T, and C and the .hgtags file will still reference the unknown Y.
Oh, hadn't even thought of that situation. I was more worried about T adding a tag for Y but C is dead.
That is okay -- that is equivalent to me cloning only Z and today I will also not know about the tag for Y added by T.
Perhaps this suggests that it is a very bad idea to make a tag on one branch that refers to a changeset on another branch (again, "branch" means topological branch here). The normal case where you do
hg tag 1.0
to tag the current working copy parent revision works fine -- if you have the tag, then you also have the changeset it refers to.
So can we forbid tags that "cross branches" like this?
Not sure. hgsubversion uses the fact that closed branches hang around in order to emulate Subversion's mutable tags, so there are converted repositories that probably look something like this...
Now that I think of it, the scenario where T adds a cross branch tag for Y is already a problem today: if I only clone C, then my .hgtags file has a dangling reference to Y.
In other words: the consequences of dead branches are not new. All that changes is the heads that are pushed/pulled by default and you can already get yourself into the same problems today with 'hg clone -r'.
-- Martin Geisler
aragost Trifork Professional Mercurial support http://aragost.com/mercurial/
_______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Merc...@selenic.com http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel