Excerpts from Sean Farley's message of 2016-09-22 13:54:22 -0700:
> Jun Wu <qu...@fb.com> writes:
> > Could we consider storing the topic of a changeset elsewhere so it's not
> > part of the changeset metadata? This will make it more lightweight and
> > help preserve hashes with remote peers.
> I assume this is along the spirit of your 'hg undo' for evolve (that
> preserves the hash)?
No. We are thinking about using topic to replace bookmark as the recommended
workflow at fb. People can get confused if local bookmarks point to public
Having topic in commit metadata makes it hard to rename them, and they are
not fundamentally different from branches imo - i.e. we can probably also
make branches work like the current topics implementation with a some tweaks
- does not seem to need a fresh new concept.
Conceptually, I think (I may be wrong) this is a lightweight way to specify
a set of changesets, like the common "tag" concept to changesets. And it
should be easy to add / remove a "tag" to / from a changeset easily.
> One of the nice features of the topic name being in the hash is that a
> server (Bitbucket in this case) can enforce settings with bundle1 since
> we can't really control the client of our users (unlike Facebook and
I don't really understand the feature. Is it some kind of ACL or so?
Mercurial-devel mailing list