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

[Lorenz Minder]

Hi,


Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

Yes, I use those files all the time.  I copy them around to different
working copies, I sometimes
move hunks from one patch to another, or edit the patch in another way.
Having the log message
in the same file as the diff is also a very cool feature.

Also I generally review the diff and tweak its log message before running
'hg qrm -r nnn'.  It's
much easier to do

   vim .hg/patches/xyz.patch

than

   hg qpop xyz.patch; hg log -v -r -2:tip > x.diff ; hg qdiff >> x.diff; vim
x.diff; rm x.diff; hg qpush -a

As a matter of fact, if I don't need the diff anymore, that's a pretty sure
sign for me that I can
commit that patch (i.e. 'hg qrm -r' it).

So yes, I would care.

Best,
--Lorenz
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/RFC%3A-Would-you-care-if-mq-stopped-storing-patch-files-physically-on--disk--tp26538933p26635780.html
Sent from the Mercurial mailing list archive at Nabble.com.