Advice re. implementing Mercurial

[Martin Geisler]

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> writes:

> Am Montag, 9. Februar 2015, 08:42:27 schrieb David Capps:
>> When you begin submitting your commits for review (and if you submit
>> them with "hg push" to some remote repo) it's too late to rebase.
>
> Wouldn’t it work to mark the QA repos as non-publishing?
>
> That would preserve the draft phase and would also follow the
> semantics of draft: Changesets become public once QA approved them.

Yes, I wrote the above with a classic deployment in mind where the
evolve extension isn't used.

As far as I know, a non-evolve workflow makes it impossible to submit
changes for review using "hg push" and also later modify the commits in
an easy way.

I've always seen this as the true underlying reason why Mercurial itself
prefers patch submissions: working with patches, we can pick just some
of the commits. While doing so we leave a little mess behind for the
contributor to clean up, but since that's in his own repo, we haven't
bothered too much about it.

(Of course people have been worried about the mess, making the cleanup
easier is one big and important feature of the obsolete markers created
when using the evolve extension.)

-- 
Martin Geisler

http://google.com/+MartinGeisler
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20150209/2747aebf/attachment.asc>