On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:23:10PM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > Dean Roehrich writes: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:36:48PM -0500, Richard Lowe wrote: > > > 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. > > Ah, ok. Since it seems you're on the SWAN, try this: > > man -M /ws/onnv-tools/onbld/man wx
Thanks. > > 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? > > I'm not sure I understand the issue you're raising, but 'cdm' should > be kept in sync with Mercurial as much as is needed. It shouldn't be > something that individuals ever have to do ... it's a software > dependency (and thus consolidation and distribution) issue between > Mercurial and a plug-in module. I guess this issue would be handled by a note to on-all announcing a flag day and telling people to refresh their build tools? > > I think most projects (ours, included) would probably expect to grab the one > > being used for on/nv as a template for their own gates. > > It'd be even better to have a common one provided somewhere (such as > via ON, but possibly elsewhere) that can be customized via > configuration files. I can live with that. > > > I'd also like to check them pre-push, but that could cause problems > > > for projects with different needs, yes. > > > > I think I've talked myself out of that idea. It's not bullet-proof, and if > > it's not bullet-proof then it may as well be handled by cdm, and therefore > > probably a pointless push-side hg hook. Any hook should be positioned where > > it will be bullet-proof and won't cause problems when that user is working > > on > > other projects, and that means it's on the gate. > > Final checks should be on the gate, as you say, but giving the end > developer tools to make nice clean changes in the first place (rather > than bashing his head against a recalcitrant gate) is the point of > "wx" and the cdm extensions. Sure. So the piece we're missing...the gate-side piece which repeats at least some parts of comchk. Given Rich's earlier comment, I guess no one has looked at doing this? Dean
