[Updated] D10893: amend: add a useless initial version of `amend -r REV `
martinvonz (Martin von Zweigbergk)
phabricator at mercurial-scm.org
Fri Jul 16 00:27:03 UTC 2021
martinvonz added inline comments.
martinvonz marked 3 inline comments as done.
INLINE COMMENTS
> marmoute wrote in amend.py:65-66
> It would be nice to have a `--stop` flag here to interrupt the associated evolution if it gets t too complicated.
> Is there a strong reason not to have it with the other from the start ?
> It would be nice to have a --stop flag here to interrupt the associated evolution if it gets t too complicated.
> Is there a strong reason not to have it with the other from the start ?
Only that it takes more time :P
> marmoute wrote in amend.py:163
> What happens if `--rev` target is not an ancestors of `.` ? Is this allowed, if so, what is the expected behavior ?
>
> In such case, the `%d::.` will be emptyis ther any bad consequence ?
There's actually a test case for that :) It is allowed. This revset is indeed (intentionally) empty in that case, so nothing gets rebased on top.
> marmoute wrote in amend.py:173-177
> relying on another extension behavior seems a bit fragile and hacky. It seems simple enough to keep track of the source revision to actually do so ourself, or am I missing something ?
I initially did that, but it just seemed unnecessary to replicate rebase's behavior around empty commits etc.
> marmoute wrote in amend.py:178
> Don't we need to backup the `target_node` sooner ? Otherwise it will be lost in an `InterventionRequired` case, will it not?
>
> (side question: do we have a test for this ?)
I don't think we can get an `InterventionRequired` yet, so I should technically move that and most of the new `state.save_on_conflicts()` to the next commit. I would then presumably also move all state management to the next patch. Do you feel strongly that I should or are you happy just knowing why it's done this way?
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D10893/new/
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D10893
To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers, Alphare, marmoute
Cc: marmoute, mharbison72, Alphare, mercurial-patches
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-patches/attachments/20210716/a23441e6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Mercurial-patches
mailing list