hg push getting worse?

John Coomes John.Coomes at sun.com
Tue Aug 11 14:10:51 PDT 2009

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


More information about the web-discuss mailing list