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

[Bill Barry]

Peter Hosey wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2009, at 08:50:12, Benoit Boissinot wrote:
>> Or maybe do merge with the same patch applied to the previous parent.
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I'm talking about patches in 
> mq, which have no explicit parent. And the usual case when I have to 
> edit a patch is when I've just edited the immediately-preceding patch. 
I think we solved this problem in attic by storing the previous parent 
node id in the patch header. It takes longer to apply patches because it 
merges them to the correct place, but we don't get rejects (unless this 
info is missing because someone moved the patch in from mq or used some 
other way to generate it).