Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> writes: > Well, maybe not so recent--it's been a couple months since I reviewed > the hg bug list. > > Anyway, I noticed 3 bugs that I think deserve additional scrutiny. > > 836 0.9.5: hg mv -A is losing files > 837 0.9.5: hg mv -A fails: d is not a file or a symbolic link > 927 git renames/copies may be applied incorrectly > > Both 836 and 837 have fixes. (They also look familiar--Rich, did you > mention something about one or both of these bugs recently?)
I think I linked you to one of them by mistake when trying to link you to another bug. > I'm wondering whether 836 could break recommit. And more generally, I'm > wondering what rename scenarios we currently have test cases for. For Hg, for Cdm, for? I'm currently unsure what #836 would do in terms of recommit. Are you meaning reci of a victim ws, or are you thinking reci does similar things under the hood? > Issue 927 looks like it might break backup/restore. It would, but that makes me wonder why I haven't seen it. > I'm looking for input on whether any of these should be marked as > stoppers for us, as well as any general comments. I trust your judgement. -- Rich
