Re: hggroup available in graphics archive

[Shai Ayal]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Michael Goffioul
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Weber
>
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> >  > If I understand correctly, going with the MQ way while still keeping the
> >  > possibility to share an archive and make it public would mean the
> >  > following:
> >  > 1) the graphics archive would be a clone (at some point in time) of the
> >  > main octave archive, along with a set of patches that are under
> >  > revision (the patches are unapplied to the graphics archive)
> >  > 2) we never commit the patches ourself to the archive (hg qdelete -r), 
> > but
> >  > we wait for the patch inclusion in the main archive, then synchronize the
> >  > graphics archive, then "hg qdelete"
> >  > 3) people wanting to access the graphics code would have to grab the
> >  > graphics archive and "hg qpush -a" to apply the patches, then compile
> >  >
> >  > Am I right?
> >
> >  Yes.
> >
> >  I don't think you gain much that way. If a qpatch is not fine-grained
> >  enough, you have to split it by hand. That's about the same as pulling
> >  the same changes as a normal patch and removing the stuff you don't want
> >  by hand and commit a second patch afterwards.
>
> If Shai and John agree, then we can try this way of working.

What I understand from this email exchange is that the graphics
archive will turn into an archive of patches.
Will we loose some of the nice features we have now ? (nice web
interface + RSS, change notification emails).
What other hg features are we giving up by using qptaches?

Anyway, I'm willing to give it a try,

Shai