atom feed69 messages in com.selenic.mercurial-develRe: RFC: dealing with dead, anonymous...
FromSent OnAttachments
Martin GeislerMay 7, 2010 10:33 am 
Dirkjan OchtmanMay 7, 2010 10:37 am 
Matt MackallMay 7, 2010 10:59 am 
Martin GeislerMay 7, 2010 11:14 am 
Matt MackallMay 7, 2010 11:46 am 
Dirkjan OchtmanMay 7, 2010 1:14 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 8, 2010 12:10 am 
Martin GeislerMay 8, 2010 1:31 am 
Martin GeislerMay 8, 2010 1:34 am 
Martin GeislerMay 8, 2010 1:48 am 
Martin GeislerMay 8, 2010 2:09 am 
Gilles MorisMay 8, 2010 3:50 am 
Martin GeislerMay 8, 2010 1:10 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 9:33 am 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 1:49 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 1:49 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 1:49 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 1:49 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 1:49 pm 
Matt MackallMay 9, 2010 2:36 pm 
Matt MackallMay 9, 2010 2:43 pm 
Matt MackallMay 9, 2010 2:45 pm 
Matt MackallMay 9, 2010 2:47 pm 
Martin GeislerMay 9, 2010 4:11 pm 
Dirkjan OchtmanMay 9, 2010 10:50 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 11:31 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 9, 2010 11:49 pm 
Matt MackallMay 10, 2010 12:04 am 
Gilles MorisMay 10, 2010 12:37 am 
Gilles MorisMay 10, 2010 12:37 am 
Matt MackallMay 10, 2010 12:38 am 
Matt MackallMay 10, 2010 12:58 am 
Sune FoldagerMay 11, 2010 2:02 am 
Sune FoldagerMay 11, 2010 2:08 am 
Sune FoldagerMay 11, 2010 2:14 am 
Sune FoldagerMay 11, 2010 2:20 am 
Matt MackallMay 11, 2010 3:53 pm 
Matt MackallMay 11, 2010 3:56 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 12:52 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 1:15 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 1:15 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 1:15 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 1:15 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 1:15 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 5:17 am 
Augie FacklerMay 12, 2010 7:35 am 
Matt MackallMay 12, 2010 8:33 am 
Matt MackallMay 12, 2010 8:34 am 
Matt MackallMay 12, 2010 8:34 am 
Matt MackallMay 12, 2010 8:55 am 
Gilles MorisMay 12, 2010 2:33 pm 
Gilles MorisMay 13, 2010 7:31 am 
Matt MackallMay 13, 2010 1:48 pm 
Martin GeislerMay 17, 2010 1:09 am 
Martin GeislerMay 17, 2010 1:22 am 
Rafael Villar Burke (Pachi)May 17, 2010 2:07 am 
Augie FacklerMay 17, 2010 5:57 am 
Martin GeislerMay 17, 2010 6:56 am 
Augie FacklerMay 17, 2010 7:46 am 
Martin GeislerMay 17, 2010 8:13 am 
Augie FacklerMay 17, 2010 8:41 am 
Gilles MorisMay 19, 2010 8:00 am 
Martin GeislerMay 19, 2010 3:53 pm 
Martin GeislerMay 19, 2010 3:58 pm 
Augie FacklerMay 24, 2010 5:15 am 
Peter ArrenbrechtMay 26, 2010 6:23 am 
Rafael Fernández LópezJun 3, 2010 5:35 am 
Peter ArrenbrechtJun 3, 2010 6:14 am 
Martin GeislerJun 4, 2010 12:18 am 
Subject:Re: RFC: dealing with dead, anonymous feature branches
From:Martin Geisler (mg@aragost.com)
Date:May 17, 2010 6:56:42 am
List:com.selenic.mercurial-devel

Augie Fackler <duri@gmail.com> writes:

On May 17, 2010, at 3:10 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:

The core idea is simple: do not push/pull/clone dead branches.

I don't know if people will see this as just a halfhearted way of supporting remove deletions, as if we couldn't figure out how to do a "proper" server-side deletion.

I just tried to figure out how Git supports this. There you need to push your branch name with a colon (?!) and others need to run a prune command from what I can tell:

http://github.com/guides/remove-a-remote-branch

I think the proposed solution would be more user friendly. We will have to take care to warn users when they pull in a changesets that causes the working copy parent changeset to be dead too.

The git solution is rather different, as removing the branch from the repo means that all the changes that were referenced only by that branch get garbage collected, but that won't cause git to lose any tag information.

So Git wont garbage collect a changeset if it is referenced by a tag? Seems quite sensible :-)

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.

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?

aragost Trifork Professional Mercurial support http://aragost.com/mercurial/