MQ usability

TK Soh teekaysoh at gmail.com
Sun Aug 16 00:45:31 UTC 2009


On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Stuart W. Marks<smarks at smarks.org> wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
>> On 15/08/09 13:13, Stuart W. Marks wrote:
>>> But for MQ, the patch is mainly an internal storage format.
>>
>> No, it's not.  In a lot of cases, MQ is being used to generate patch
>> sets for distribution to users who aren't necessarily using MQ to manage
>> them at there end.
>
> As Isaac Jurado pointed out, "hg export" will generate a patch, as will "hg
> diff" and "hg qdiff". I should also add that even if MQ stores a patch file in
> git format, these commands will produce output in conventional diff format if
> their options and defaults indicate that they should. (Of course, they may also
> lose information in the process.)
>
> Anyway, the point is that even if MQ were to change its patch storage format,
> you could still share conventional patches with non-MQ users by using these
> commands instead of accessing the patch files directly.
>
>>> The current situation, where MQ silently loses information unless
>>> --git is
>>> specified, is pretty unfriendly.
>>
>> It should be remembered that anyone who wants --git to be the default
>> for their MQ patches just has to put:
>>
>> [defaults]
>> qrefresh = --git
>>
>> in their ~/hgrc (or equivalent).
>
> I still think this is pretty unfriendly. Yes, this is the workaround that
> everybody has to install after getting burned once or twice. And then they have
> to do it again when they start using hg on a new system, forget to add this
> workaround, and then get burned again.
>
> BTW this is tracked as http://mercurial.selenic.com/bts/issue1640 . This is
> currently classified as a "wish" even though I think it's a bug that MQ can
> silently lose information.

I totally agree with you on these.




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list