[Commented On] D9130: salvaged: properly deal with salvaged file during copy tracing

[marmoute (Pierre-Yves David)]

marmoute added a comment.


  issue6163 is a bit tricky, the current semantic seems like a good default, but I agree it anoyingly gets in the ways in a couple of important cases.
  
  The main source of pain is probably the one from rebase/evolve. On that regards, I wonder if we could leverage obsolescence markers and the changesets centric algorithm to fix it. It would probably be enough to remove most of the pain around issue6153.
  
  The "re-adding a deleted files case" is a bit trickier. we currently do not have any user facing concept for this kind of revival, neither we have any format or any code to track this information. Unless by doing an explicit Å“dipus merge with the ancestors your bring that file back from.
  
  My current thinking is that the current behavior seems "right", but that adding some options to allow user to explicitily record this might be good. Maybe we should just start with documenting and making it easier to create sur Å“dipus merge and see if they are a real demand.

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9130/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D9130

To: marmoute, #hg-reviewers, Alphare
Cc: martinvonz, Alphare, mercurial-patches
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-patches/attachments/20201007/08043bcb/attachment.html>