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 1:22:18 am | |
| List: | com.selenic.mercurial-devel | |
Gilles Moris <gill...@free.fr> writes:
On Saturday 08 May 2010 10:10:33 pm Martin Geisler wrote:
Gilles Moris <gill...@free.fr> writes:
On Saturday 08 May 2010 10:32:04 am Martin Geisler wrote:
May be it's just a matter of better advertising closed heads and of education. But we should be prepared to that.
Yeah, there will be the problem of how to discover or re-find the dead heads since I think they should be skipped in 'hg log' by default (not hidden from other parts of Mercurial, just hidden in by default in the various log viewers).
You lost me: if just cloning will trim those dead heads, do we really need to also hide dead heads from logs. Just mark them as 'closed' should be sufficient, isn't it ?
I guess so and that would be more in line with how we normally do things. I imagine TortoiseHg will get an option to exclude dead branches from its log viewer but that should probably be something people enable if they want.
So I basically think we need a way to say to Mercurial: "yes, I know there is an extra head, but I've marked it as dead/closed -- please stop bothering me" :-)
Actually, I was wrong yesterday: after testing more, "hg heads", "hg branches", "hg update", "hg merge" seems to work OK in presence of closed heads: they are not reported or used for default merge/update.
So the situation is far better than I thought originally, and may just need some polishing. I've made a few patches yesterday that I'll try to send.
Great job on the patches! I'm glad to see they went in without too much fuzz.
Excluding the dead heads from push/pull will furthermore solve the problem people have when they have made a mess and don't want to push it anywhere. Just today a guy came by on IRC who had managed to commit the same change at three different places in his history. Now Mercurial (wisely) told him that he would create multiple heads on push and he was very confused... It would have been great to tell him to do
hg update first-troublesome-head hg commit --mark-dead (or --kill, --murder, etc :-) hg update second-troublesome-head hg commit --mark-dead hg push
As I've just said, it seems that "--close-branch" seems to be working.
Almost. After marking a changeset as closed, it will still be pushed by 'hg push'. I want to be able to mark a changeset as dead and that should exclude it from push/pull. That way the local mess in the above example wont be pushed to the server.
Do you intend to have another option here. Or just rename the option ?
I think a new option will be best.
-- 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