Concatenating changesets

[Dustin Sallings]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:36, John D. Mitchell wrote:

> Why do you think it's a bad idea?  Especially if you like the use of
> mq (in general, if not for this specific use case)?

	I use mq for context switching, or experimentation.

	Right now, I have two patches I'm going to throw away because in one  
case someone came along and did it better, and in the other case, I  
found a tool that did what the tool I was writing was attempting to do.

	I've got two other patches in progress where I'm figuring out how to  
apply some of these things.  mq is appropriate for this because I can  
easily suspend the work on demand.

	I've also got five incoming patches I can rebase my changes on.

> This is a clean and straightforward way to do this with the full
> safety of the the append-only hg base system without having to incur
> the confusion, complexity, and potential issues with getting people up
> to speed with and using mq.  In terms of workflow, it's also a nice
> way to address one of the complaints of a DSCM -- all of the extra
> cruft that can accumulate in a repository due to all of the
> pulls+merges as well as for folks who like to do "micro-commits" as
> they go.


	Well, my *general* approach is to just not worry and commit.

-- 
Dustin Sallings

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20071214/fa245254/attachment.htm