Advocacy vs. git

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Giorgos Keramidas
<keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:01:35 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
>> Am Dienstag 28 April 2009 13:09:00 schrieb Hans Meine:
>>> It would be great if there was a way to keep track of "shared" changesets,
>>> i.e. ones that I were already pushed or cloned, such that editing them
>>> should be prohibited (or warned about).  AFAICS it's not safely possible
>>> (in particular, anyone with a local login can clone my world-readable repo
>>> without me knowing it), but when everyone pushes/pulls to/from a shared
>>> central repo, it might be feasible (and useful).
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to just assume that default-push is where we
>> share changesets to, so we can call "outgoing" and treat all reported
>> changesets as non-shared ones?
>>
>> That's not perfect, but it would helpa void common mistakes.
>
> Isn't the assumption that anything that can potentially touch the
> network is going to be available at all times a bit weird for a DVCS?
>
> Running "hg outgoing" or "hg incoming" to arbitrary paths, even the
> default path, means that it would then be either impossible or mildly
> annoying to use rebase/histedit/whatever when in fully-offline mode :/

Seconded. I'd hate to have to wait until hg finally finds out the
destination is unreachable.
-parren