"Patch Management" descriptions in conflict

[Stephen Rasku]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, BOGGESS Rod CORE
<Rod.Boggess at tenova.com>wrote:

>   ...
>
> By Bryan's own admission, the relevance of MQ in the book is overrated
> with respect to the current state of things....
> GGhh
>
> I'm wondering what that means, "relevance...overrated...". I do agree that MQ,
> being a more advanced use-case, should be addressed in an Appendix,
> although it would be a tough call, and I think even the two paragraphs
> could be expanded to do it justice. Not enough information exists (for my
> tastes) on sub-repos, which should probably have equal footing to MQ.
>
> But this statement leaves me with the impression that few are using MQ,
> and I wonder if there's any actual numbers on its popularity amongst users.
>
I've used MQ in the patch and I continue to do so.  I like the fact that I
can go back an modify patches and that I can fold multiple patches into a
single commit when I'm ready.

...Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140129/adf77de3/attachment-0002.html>