Thanks Gilles! I'll have to review the patch again no matter what, but I think this may be a problem with the hgsubversion integration since the core hg commands are working as expected (shelling out to hg, that is.) If this is the case -- that hgsubversion is to blame -- should I just target the earliest version of Mercurial supported by hgsubversion?
-- ~Dan On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:46:42PM +0200, Gilles Moris wrote: > On Friday 14 May 2010 03:15:35 pm Dan Buch wrote: > > Howdy all, > > > > I'm working on this patch: > > > > http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/1464/ > > > > > > chipx86 recommended I post to the group about which version of Mercurial > > I should target. Thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers, > > If you use only the Command Line Interface, the Mercurial team ensures the > backward compatibility, so that any version at least from 0.9 to 1.5 should > be OK. Note that this is essentially for core Mercurial commands, but not > assured for extensions. > If you want some support, you can ask on IRC #mercurial. > > Regards. > Gilles.
Description: Digital signature