pulkit added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6356#92695, @sangeet259 wrote: > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6356#92644, @pulkit wrote: > > > > Why do I need to split the patches into two ? > > > The reason to split what would have been a single patch into two is because > > > for the next patch to be able to use the mdiff during tests, > > > this revision has to be there in the system's mercurial installation. > > > > I didn't get the last line. Can you explain more? > > > > I think both can be folded in one and should be good. > > > @pulkit > Well the next patch imports mercurial and then calls `mdff.new_diff` . If I combine those two patches then you can not see the change as while testing https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6359 , if there `mdiff` doesn't already have new_diff > it will always fall back to unified_diff as happened with @durin42 , while he was trying to see the alternate path as he trying to test https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5514 . > > What I am trying to do here is, once https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6356 is has added `new_diff` to `mdiff`, you can then have this revision installed in your system or wherever one tests this, and then check https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6359 to see the alternate path it follows. I was trying to test it and unable to get this to work both with a single patch and two splitted patches. My understanding is that the 1st patch should be present in the mercurial installed in the system, which is what you said right? If that's correct, we can go ahead and have this whole as one patch as I don't think people usually do install system hg on patch to patch basis. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6356 To: sangeet259, #hg-reviewers Cc: durin42, pulkit, martinvonz, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
