What's next for pbranch?

[Christian Boos]

Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Peter Williams <pwil3058 at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> [snip]
>   
>> That doesn't mean that MQ doesn't have its uses.  For its intended purpose,
>> keeping a set of local patches against an externally managed source tree
>> (e.g. the Linux kernel), it is superior to pbranch.
>>
>> And I'm sure that for some purposes pbranch is superior to MQ.
>>     
>
> Actually, for the specific case you mention I personally find pbranch
> to be superior. I use it to maintain a set of local patches against hg
> crew, for instance. Unlike mq pbranch uses regular hg merges for
> updating the patches against changes in upstream.
>   

Note that with Mercurial 1.4, you can now safely use 'hg rebase' for 
rebasing your MQ patch queue.
This *will* use regular hg merges for updating the patches against 
changes in upstream.

e.g. assuming you have your patch queue applied:

$ hg pull
$ hg rebase -b qtip -d tip

> Where mq is far superior, though, is when the set of active patches
> needs to change at will (qguard). And pbranch is basically useless
> when you want to reorder patches. MQ is also better for quick edits to
> csets (qimport, qref, qfinish).
>   

and qfold ...

-- Christian