Dean Roehrich <Dean.Roehrich at sun.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:36:48PM -0500, Richard Lowe wrote: >> Dean Roehrich <Dean.Roehrich at sun.com> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:24:39PM -0500, Richard Lowe wrote: >> >> > Okay, so 'hg commit' will be naked, and won't have a cdm wrapper to >> >> > make sure >> >> > the commit message is in the correct form (PSARC case, or CR number and >> >> > synopsis, on first line). Is this covered by one of the commit hooks? >> >> >> >> We really don't want to do that on commit, I don't think. >> > >> > If not on commit, then when? I take it that on/nv users would expect to >> > make >> > frequent use of cdm_recommit? I'm not real clear on what is happening in >> > cdm_recommit...it looks like we're concatenating the log messages for >> > several >> > changesets and then, what is squishdeltas doing?, maybe an 'hg revert', 'hg >> > strip', 'hg commit -A' kind of thing with the new, concatenated, log >> > message? >> >> I can't tell if you're asking about the implementation or its result. >> >> The result is the same as you would have with 'wx redelget' > > Unfortunately, I've never used wx (or cdm, ha!), so I'm struggling to decipher > things.
Oh, ok. >> The implementation forces a commit of the current workspace content >> over a different prior revision, then removes the prior set of >> changes. > > ...which would give a result similar to revert,strip,commit? Similar to revert, commit, strip, yes. > If you're not actually doing revert/strip/commit, then are we getting too cozy > with Mercurial internals? How difficult will it be for individual people to > keep up with Mercurial releases and still use cdm? As with most things in this space, people are expected to use what the CBE requires. It's generally not hard to move between the two, but it's not always "just upgrade Hg and it'll still work" either. There's very little way to not be "too cozy" with Mercurial's innards, the goal is to be as short a distance over that line as we can manage. >> I don't think we would want to do comment checks on hg commit, because > > I agree now, though our reasons differ. I'd like cdm to do it, and I guess > you're saying cdm_comchk covers this. But that means there must be a file > somewhere that contains the proposed log message, and the user must use > 'hg commit -l'. That's fine, and must be what the wx users are doing anyway. > Or for you to have used recommit and specified the real message, but yes. -- Rich
