Message108477
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, brett.cannon, eric.araujo, mark.dickinson, pitrou |
| Date |
2010年06月23日.19:23:27 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.008708984 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1277321003.3202.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1277312752.79.0.928814447954.issue8999@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> As for Hg support, enough people seem to run mq on top of svn to make
> this a reasonable thing to add now and to change once the transition
> occurs.
Yes, but the question is what workflow it should assume. If you are
running mq for example (or pbranch, or doing local named branches),
using a simple "hg status" of the working copy will not do the right
thing.
(and, by the way, you can't assume mq is the favourite workflow out of
there: I for example use clones + local named branches instead) |
|