feature proposal: named branches without named branches

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 11/18/2016 10:32 AM, John Jefferies wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2016 08:51, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> Nicolas Pinault writes:
>> Testing just needs you to use it and to report any problems you
>> experience. Often not having deep skills is actually an advantage for
>> that :)
>>
>> Time is another matter… maybe you’ll have a project at some point where
>> it can come in helpful - for example writing a patch you’ll have to
>> revise a few times.
>
> I have used the evolve extension every day for several years now and
> find it wonderful for the work I do. While I accept that there may be
> rough edges that the devs want to clear up before it moves from
> experimental, I don't see them in the work I do. If people urged it to
> move from experimental as it is now, it's my belief that documentation
> explaining the limitations is maybe all it needs.

It is great that evolution work great for you. But it get more 
complicated for multiple other. I even met some on them today. There is 
a defined set of thing we know we need to be better before can safely 
release it to more user. We'll eventually get there.

Thanks for your positive and detailed feedback ☺

> Also, I'm sure you know, TortoiseHg supports most of the evolve
> commands, and is very good at displaying the history of obsolete and
> troubled changesets. I can't be the only one who uses these features so
> it must have had lots of testing by now. :-)
>
> OK, one problem I've had is where I wanted to evolve a branch containing
> a merge. I had to manually rebase stuff, but that was no more difficult
> than if I wasn't using the evolve extension. There were problems in the
> early days that have been fixed, such as difficulties working out why a
> changeset was troubled.
>
> FWIW. The commands I regularly use are:
> commit --amend     (lots)
> rebase
> histedit
> evolve
> prune
> touch

Did you had a look at `hg uncommit` and `hg split`?

Cheers,

-- 
Pierre-Yves David