On Jun 14, 2013, at 10:36 PM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Brent Christian < > brent.christ...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On 6/12/13 7:55 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> >>> Something of an aside but ... >>> >>> On 13/06/2013 3:45 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Brent, >>>> >>>> Thanks for doing this. >>>> >>>> Your webrev does not include mercurial changeset information, which I >>>> think >>>> is supported by recent webrevs. >>>> >>> >>> Given the changeset has to be created after the review is complete >>> most/many people will not have a changeset prepared at review time. >>> >> >> That's it exactly. If at all possible, I don't commit until the code has >> completed code review. I tell webrev to do its thing based on modified >> files, rather than outgoing changesets. > > > Hmmm.... I've been using mq for so long it's hard for me to imagine working > without it. > > It allows others to review the mercurial changeset metadata, which is also > the best summary to decide whether to review further. +1 mq is the best way i have found to keep multiple patches in flight either in the same queue or using multiple queues, and avoid those annoying merge commits. I wish there were better tooling support in IDEs for it. Paul.
