Advice re. implementing Mercurial

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 11:25 +0100, Martin Geisler wrote:
> 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.

You can keep thinking that, but it's not actually true. It's because I
prefer reviewing changes by replying to emails, full stop. Even with
everyone using evolve (and pushgate!), I will still insist on email.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.