LiquidHg via MQ

[Kevin Bullock]

On 3 May 2011, at 1:08 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 May 2011 10:37:45 Kevin Bullock wrote:
>> On May 2, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> PS: Is it really necessary to add garbage collection when using
>>> bookmarks? That violates the principle that no work gets lost without
>>> explicit action by replicating a (mis-)feature of git.
>> 
>> That doesn't seem to be a part of the current thinking (and I hope the idea
>> has actually died, because it would basically kill the simple workflow).
> 
> How would it kill the simple workflow to require explicit action to destroy 
> changesets not referenced by a bookmark? It’s not like gc is needed in normal 
> operation, as it is for git (because git creates quite much garbage).

Ah, well, see, "garbage collection" implies _automatic_ action to remove "unused" data. I'm agreeing with you, that replicating git's misfeature would be a bad idea. It would at worst require everyone to use bookmarks.

>> The changesets remain in
>> existing clones and can be _manually_ pulled into new ones.
> 
> That sounds nicer than garbage collection :)
> 
>> Nope, the notes say pretty clearly that with some manual intervention,
>> you'll be able to liquefy existing changesets. That's pretty much morally
>> equivalent to history editing, though.
> 
> It wasn’t clear for me from the notes, that’s why I asked. Thanks for 
> clarifying.


Sure thing :) I'm pleased with how the concept is shaping up; I'm getting more and more eager to see some code that I can play with :)

pacem in terris / mir / shanti / salaam / heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock