Re: strings assignment fix

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On  1-Oct-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | Another question is whether merge changesets are acceptable.
> | The mercurial book encourages developing using the
> | clone/pull-commit-merge-push cycle. However, we may instead require
> | any set of patches to be always rebased against the current tip before
> | pushed. This is achievable using mq, though not very convenient.
>
> Isn't it also possible to run
>
>  ... make changes, then when ready to commit:
>  hg diff > diffs
>  hg revert --all
>  hg pull
>  hg update
>  patch < diffs
>  hg commit ...
>  hg push
>
> ?  I think it is about the same to use mq:
>
>  hg qnew patch-name
>  ... make changes, then when ready to commit:
>  hg qrefresh -m "commit message"
>  hg qpop
>  hg pull
>  hg update
>  hg qpush
>  hg qdelete -r qtip
>  hg push
>


For a single patch, yes. For a series of patches, this is problematic.


> | if we settle on this, I'll be glad if we avoid folding patches; it
> | complicates transplanting to stable branches.
>
> If by folding patches, you mean combining changes for multiple
> purposes into just one changeset before pushing to the public archive,
> then I definitely agree we should not be doing that.  Changesets
> should not try to solve mulitple problems, same as we have always
> preferred.
>

For instance, I'm working on the optimization functions in my archive:
http://hg.tw-math.de/highegg

what should I do once we agree to include these changes (or some of
them)? The simplest thing for me is to pull, merge & push.



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz