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.
To answer these, the planned general-purposed, root-based, non-phase hidden store will cover most use-cases of the internal-only, phase-based hidden. And it's much more useful than your proposal. I think it's unnecessary to have "internal changeset" concept separated from the general-purposed hidden. But if the community do decide to implement the internal changeset concept, I think that could be doable, but it should be done in the new non-phase store, instead of adding a new phase. Therefore, I'm -1 on adding a new phase in all cases, since there are better choices. > 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? > > Cheers, > _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel