RFC: Would you care if mq stopped storing patch files physically on disk?

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Dilip M <dilipm79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> People reading the devel list may have noticed I am trying to rethink and
>> unify mq and pbranch. They are both solutions to what mpm calls malleable
>> history. This is also the aspect that I'm interested in: malleable parts of
>> history within an hg repo. So part of the plan is to get rid of the physical
>> patch files by default. This would free us from a bunch of limitations
>> inherited from quilt's approach to patch management. However, the latter
>> must also have its merits.
>>
>> So, are you using the fact that mq stores the patch files physically on disk
>> in your workflows? If so, how? What are the crucial aspects for you?
>>
>> Note: Import/export to quilt-style patch queues would still be supported,
>> but the physical files would no longer be the master copy.
>
> In simple words, does this mean, the mq (qinit -c) won't create directory
> under repo's hg directiry?
>
> I _feel_ Mq is killer feature of HG and it should be more improved for windows
> too.

Yes, the envisioned alternative or maybe successor to mq would not by
default create the .hg/patches directory anymore.
-parren