On 09/22/2016 10:09 PM, Jun Wu wrote:
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.
One could definitely consider it. I've never been thrilled with having
the topic as part of the hash. I agree if makes it more heavy weight
that I would like to create and rename them. Not having them part of the
hash with part of my initial criteria for a lightweight solution.
However, when Matt, Augie and I were discussing topic somewhere in
Minneapolis last year, Augie made a good case for storing them in the
changesets at least until someone come with something better. Having
them part of extra is solving many of hard problems right away:
* We already how to discover and exchange them (just reuse changeset and
named branch discovery)
* We already can track history of changes (just reuse evolution related
* We can handle rename, cyclic rename and and divergent rename (just
reuse evolution related feature set).
The last one is especially important because this is one of the main
issue with bookmark. The life cycle is messy, conflict are annoying to
express/resolve and propagation of all that is a hell.
So, yes ideally I would be happy with an ever lighter-weight solution.
However given the vast amount of critical advantage we gain from this
-in-extra- solutions it is unlikely we can divert our scarce resources
to build a whole better solution.
But sure if someone show up with a solid alternative and his willing to
implement it. It would certainly get the attention it deserve.
Mercurial-devel mailing list