Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> writes: >>>>>> "Jim" == James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> writes: > > Jim> Seriously, if there's a dependency on possibly unstable bits, it'd > Jim> be good to think about how to handle that properly. > > The current approach is for cdm to know what version is Mercurial it > works with, and to complain if you've got a different version installed. > > Rich> The tools aren't interface delivered to users, I think the appropriate > Rich> thing would be a contract between the ON C-Team and SFW for the > Rich> mercurial internals. > > Jim> Yes, that'd be a decent way to handle it. > > Jim> Niftier still if it could one day swim upstream ... > > Yeah. I hadn't really thought much about that option. What would be > involved to turn cdm into a bundled Mercurial extension, like MQ? We'd > probably want to pull out the ON-specific policy checks.
Most of the things we need cdm for are either not applicable to the world at large, or things the Hg folks find distasteful. I don't know what would be involved in pushing bits of it upstream. I don't entirely see what the benefit would be, the parts that delve deepest are also the parts I would doubt would be taken. -- Rich
