hg push getting worse?
Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM
Tue Aug 11 14:28:55 PDT 2009
John Coomes wrote:
> Jonathan Gibbons (Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM) wrote:
>> John Coomes wrote:
>>> Andrew John Hughes (gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org) wrote:
>>>> 2009/8/11 John Coomes <John.Coomes at sun.com>:
>>>> Is there any further news on whether the forest extension will become
>>>> a standard part of Mercurial? When I went searching for a client-side
>>>> version to support newer versions, I had to resort to using a snapshot
>>>> of their repository for forest.
>>> I doubt forest will ever become part of mercurial. Mercurial now has
>>> an experimental sub-repo feature for dealing with nested repositories.
>>> It doesn't have the flexibility of the forest extension, so wouldn't
>>> work for openjdk, at least as it stands now.
>> What are the issues with the Mercurial sub-repos. It seems close to what
>> we want.
>> What is the lack of flexibility that you have observed that concerns you?
> The main one is the inability to get a partial tree. But there's also
> the inability to avoid recursing into sub-repos when doing an update.
> There were a couple of requests for the latter on the mercurial-devel
> list, but I don't think anything has happened. And it seems to be
> just an implementation problem, but the location of the sub-repos is
> kept in a versioned file which can't be overridden from the command
Ouch. Thanks for the update.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the web-discuss