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

[Christian Boos]

Benoit Boissinot wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 05:35:51PM +0100, Christian Boos wrote:
>   
>> Peter Hosey wrote:
>>     
>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 23:53:10, Peter Arrenbrecht wrote:
>>>       
>>>> So, are you using the fact that mq stores the patch files
>>>> physically on disk in your workflows? If so, how?
>>>>         
>>> I sometimes have to hand-edit the patches because mq is so finicky
>>> about patches having to *exactly match* whatever's in the source
>>> code. I would welcome a real solution to that problem.
>>>       
>> Try apply the .rej file via wiggle  [1].
>>
>> Now if hg would by itself fallback to word level merges when a chunk
>> fails to apply, that would be excellent ;-)
>>     
>
> Or maybe do merge with the same patch applied to the previous parent.
>   

But this would work only if you actually know what was that previous 
parent. Maybe you got that patch from the bugtracker or elsewhere, and 
if it was not produced by an `hg export` it will not have the parent hash.

Even in the case the patch was already in MQ before, when you do a qpop 
the parent information will be lost. Would it be possible to write the 
standard headers in the patch after a successful qpush? Maybe simply by 
overwriting the patch with an hg export?

-- Christian