This revision now requires changes to proceed.
baymax added a comment.
baymax requested changes to this revision.
There seems to have been no activities on this Diff for the past 3 Months.
By policy, we are automatically moving it out of the `need-review` state.
Please, move it back
durin42 added a comment.
I like where this is going, but I wonder if these specific hooks can be
written without being in-process Python hooks. Reason being that Python hooks
use the unstable internals of hg and are semi-discouraged if they're avoidable.
Thoughts?
If you do stick
indygreg added a comment.
I think we should go a step further and have some built-in hooks in Mercurial
itself, like we do extensions. A good first implementation would be to define
those hooks somewhere where they can be imported, add tests like they are
standalone hooks. As a follow-up
joerg.sonnenberger updated this revision to Diff 16431.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6825?vs=16430=16431
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6825/new/
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6825
pulkit added a comment.
Thanks a lot for putting efforts here. I am +1 on this. I haven't looked at
the code though, will try to review if no one else beats me to it.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6825/new/
REVISION DETAIL
joerg.sonnenberger created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mercurial-devel.
Herald added a reviewer: hg-reviewers.
REVISION SUMMARY
Many workflows depend on hooks to enforce certain policies, e.g. to
prevent forced pushes. The Mercurial Guide includes some cases and
Google can
