Cloning a non publishing repo

[Gregory Szorc]

If I recall, there are some good reasons we do things the way they are. Something about preventing accidental changes? Possibly shared server workflows?

That being said, I've been burned by local clones promoting draft changesets to public. I really wish local clones (or pushes and pulls) didn't do that by default because it is super annoying when working with local clones.

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 06:12, Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> 
> This looks like a good idea, Can you send a patch or file a bug ?
> 
> (bugtracker is at https://bz.mercurial-scm.org/)
> 
>> On 04/25/2017 03:08 PM, Cody Scott wrote:
>> I think when you clone a non publishing repo that you should get a non
>> publishing repo.
>> 
>> Often I will clone locally and create revisions and push them to my
>> original local repo and they will become public.
>> 
>> The solution is to set the original local repo to non publishing but when I
>> do a new clone on a new machine I have to remember to set it to non
>> publishing.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mercurial mailing list
>> Mercurial at mercurial-scm.org
>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Pierre-Yves David
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at mercurial-scm.org
> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial