|| ||Matt Mackall <mpm-AT-selenic.com> |
|| ||Martin Geisler <mg-AT-lazybytes.net> |
|| ||Re: Experimental implementation of liquid-hg |
|| ||Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:52:58 -0600|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:48 +0100, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Matt Mackall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hi everybody,
> > The whole point of liquid is for people to avoid accidentally
> > modifying or deleting or rebasing publicly-visible changesets.
> I also discussed this with Pierre-Yves and the others at the Zurich
> mini-sprint, but let me bring it up here again: do you think rebasing
> publically-visible changesets is a big problem?
Yes. See 15 zillion rants by Linus about it on LKML.
Rebase is not (yet) a first class command in Mercurial, so we get fewer
misguided users of it than Git, but even in my own work I occasionally
have to stop and think: is everything I'm about to rebase local only or
am I going to end up with a bunch of duplicate csets on the server?
> Maybe it is just because people have been burnt in the past and are now
> very careful with using rebase? If so, then this kind of infrastructure
> makes more sense since it would let people be more bold when rebasing,
> knowing that Mercurial will stop them from being stupid.
Indeed. The idea is that Mercurial should keep track (transparently!) of
what you should and shouldn't be changing.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
to post comments)