Excerpts from Pierre-Yves David's message of 2017-04-05 13:28:57 +0200: > > On 04/04/2017 09:06 PM, Jun Wu wrote: > > Since most people want a separate hidden storage that handles wider cases, I > > don't think this incomplete (internal-only) solution worths investment. > > They seems to be misunderstanding here. We should probably jump on a > Face to Face medium > > What I've been trying to point out here is that separating > internal-changesets from real-changesets has value (and even seems > necessary to build a good UI). And that phases seems a good choice to > make "internal" distinction. And I do not see you answering these two > points. > > I understand you want another independent hiding mechanism for > change-set, This is not incompatible with the current proposal. > > As we do not seems to make progress with email, would you be available > to discuss this over Video Conference?
There are some questions that I'm waiting for your answers: - Define "user intention" about adding a obsmarker formally [1] - Why "an unified hidden store" does not work [2] I'd appreciate if you can answer them directly and publicly. Thanks! Besides, I think you need to convince others, other than just me, because most people seem to like the unified hidden store idea very much. [1]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2017-March/095686.html [2]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2017-April/096268.html > > Cheers, > _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
