Advantages of MQ over vanilla hg

[Ben Hood]

> An upstream maintainer might also want to use mq (or quilt) if they
> they want to test and fix up a patch series before casting them into
> stone.  Sometimes I find it's easier to edit patch files (to remove
> trailing whitespace, fix up the commit comments, etc.), all at one go,
> and being able to do "hg qpop -a ; <hack on patch files>; hg qpush -a"
> is highly convenient.

That's a good point. So basically you're saying that when you maintain
an upstream tree and people are sending you 98% perfect patches, which
you would just like to dot the i's and cross the t's on to get to 100%
correct, using MQ is more flexible than vanilla hg?

Is this because with vanilla hg, you have to apply the patch to the
maintained tree and then apply a 2nd corrective patch to remedy the
slight imperfections in the original patch?

> I suppose I should just be hard-nosed and just reject the whole patch
> series until the submitter gets it right, sometimes it's easier just
> to fix it up myself (although admittedly that doesn't scale in the
> long term).

It's nice to have the flexibility to do both though.