I started a project gate based on ON. I want the gate to track numbered
builds. First I cloned onnv-gate and rolled it back to the most recent
build (onnv_78 at the time). This didn't work because changes formed
a new head and hg recommit refused to operate on such a workspace. So
then I cloned onnv-gate with "-r onnv_78", and that worked well. Except
that Mercurial brings over all the changesets up to the tagged one,
which doesn't include the changeset which creates the tag, so while the
gate was at onnv_78, it didn't actually contain the onnv_78 tag.
I found this annoying. So I think going forward when I sync to the next
build, I'll include the changeset which creates the tag.
So I think there are two questions here:
- Will including the tagging changesets set me up for some problem
later? Is there a reason I shouldn't do this?
- If it's ok, should I file an RFE for Mercurial to allow me to
specify the changeset which creates a given tag? That is, right now
in order to pull the changeset which creates the onnv_79 tag, I have
to look up its revision number or hash. It would be a lot easier to
say "onnv_79+1" or to have an option which Mercurial understands to
mean "the changeset which creates this tag". I imagine the latter
might be not be generic enough since a changeset which creates a tag
might include other changes, so the fact that we create a tag-only
changeset is a local ON policy.
David
