What's next for pbranch?

[Christian Boos]

Peter Williams wrote:
> On 26/11/09 10:21, Peter Williams wrote:
>> On 26/11/09 00:05, Christian Boos wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Note that with Mercurial 1.4, you can now safely use 'hg rebase' for
>>> rebasing your MQ patch queue.
>>
>> Does this mean that the rebase bugs have been fixed? I didn't notice the
>> patches go in. It's good news if it does because rebase is a better
>> solution than the 'qsave dance' described in the book.
>
> I've just checked the list of bugs and there are still some unresolved 
> ones that make the use of rebase with MQ inadvisable.  So I'll abstain 
> for the time being.

I think all the problems rebase had together with MQ are fixed:

issue1561     unnecessary merge conflicts in rebase    (resolved)
issue1830     Rebase or merge bug    (resolved)
issue1835     `pull --rebase` doesn't rebase    (need-eg)

1561 was the main issue [1], and 1830 was a duplicate.
I was not able to reproduce 1835, so I asked for more details, but I 
think this should work as well.
Btw, my original example of doing `hg pull; hg rebase -b qtip -d tip` 
for rebasing the applied patch on top of upstream changes can actually 
be achieved by doing a simple `hg pull --rebase`.

Of the other issues involving rebase, the only real problem left seems 
to be 1867 [2], and that one involves the rebasing of a merge changeset. 
This is not something which can happen in the context of rebasing MQ 
patches, as by design MQ doesn't manage merge changesets.

So did I miss something else?

-- Christian

[1] - http://selenic.com/repo/hg/rev/49efeed49c94
[2] - http://mercurial.selenic.com/bts/issue1867