Alternative to MQ?

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 14:27 -0400, Scott Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 09:34 -0700, John W wrote:
> > > I recently read a blog post [1] indicating that mq is an unloved
> > > feature, and is slated for eventual deprecation.
> >
> > False and false (and not a big deal anyway).
> > Here are the unloved features and what it means to be one:
> > http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/UnlovedFeatures
> 
> 
> 
> Followed a link from that page to:
> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/InotifyExtension
> 
> Which states in big bold letters:
> "*This extension was included with Mercurial 1.0–2.9. It was removed
> <http://www.selenic.com/repo/hg/rev/352abbb0be88> in Mercurial 3.0, and
> enabling it is now a no-op.*"
> 
> Which seems to contradict:
> 
> And if deprecation finally comes, it will not be a big deal. Deprecation
> > for us does not mean 'scheduled for removal' (we never remove things),
> > it just means 'no longer listed in help'.
>
> Just sayin'
> :-)
> Perhaps you should clarify on the list

Yep, the inotify extension was a pretty unique case:

- it was always buggy (in potentially loss-inducing ways)
- it doesn't change the command-line API (except by being buggy)
- a non-buggy replacement finally appeared (hgwatchman)

So removing it might make some people's hg experience slower (sad, but
not work-stopping) but also less buggy (yay). In contrast, we can't
remove mq without breaking people's work flows.. so we never will.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.