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 data)
* 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.
Cheers, -- Pierre-Yves David _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
