Forest Extension - Not to be found?

Mario Torre neugens.limasoftware at
Mon Jul 25 20:17:56 UTC 2011

Il giorno lun, 25/07/2011 alle 12.55 -0700, Kelly O'Hair ha scritto:
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:45 AM, mark.reinhold at wrote:
> > 2011/7/25 10:06 -0700, kelly.ohair at
> >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
> >>> I would also like to amend the README files, so that every reference
> >>> to the forest disappears, what do you think?
> >> 
> >> I thought that was already done.
> > 
> > I don't understand why people are so eager to wipe out all references
> > to the forest extension.
> > 
> > It's a bit clunky, I agree, and the original author doesn't maintain
> > it any more, but one Michael Tharp is maintaining a fork here:
> > 
> >
> > 
> > I use this on a daily basis and it works fine.  Until and unless we
> > replace the forest extension with something better than a shell script
> > I suggest we refer people to this version as a viable alternative.
> It broke with 1.8 and is broken again with 1.9. Each breakage creates pains
> for multiple people and it is just a pain in my view.
> Hopefully we will have a better alternative than a shell script soon, and when
> that happens I'll re-adjust the Dev Guide to use that extension, although I do think
> the Dev Guide spent too much time talking about forests than it should have.
> Most developers work in one repository, and I think the guide should try and focus on that.
> -kto

Honestly, to Kelly's point, I would say that forest should not be a
mandatory feature, and although the script is less nice that the forest
extension, the fact that this breaks from time to time is indeed
irritating, especially since mercurial is released quite often, and we
only maintain it for some very specific version of hg (usually the
latest, as this is what we get from the Linux distributions we Free
Software hippies tend to use), so we leave out all the other people that
for one reason or another don't updated.

I still think we should support forests, but not to the point to make
them mandatory and spend so much words in the documentation, especially
(and this was the point of the original post), since our links are
outdated. Well, that's just my point of view, that is :)


More information about the discuss mailing list