On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:29:53PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote: > Danek Duvall wrote: > > > >with until people get fluent with mq (which is the only thing that makes > >such a thing possible at all). It's probably worth writing deltachk so > >that it can support either model, and have a per-repo switch to select the > >model (or something where #2 goes through without comment, and #1 sends > >back a message saying that #2 is preferred). > > A per-repo switch is an interesting idea.... maybe for consolidations > that prefer less rigorous tracking. That's something we can investigate.
It would be nice if there was support for repository specific commit/putback policy that would only accept "putbacks" that conformed to that policy. That and a tool like wx pbchk that would point out any problems (using that repo's policy) prior to trying a "putback" is essential to efficient developer/repository interaction. > And yes, this will definitely require the use of Mq; which at this point > I'm starting to assume is a given. There will have to be some > additional work, either at the Mq level, or at our mythical > Hg-wx-whizzy-extension level to wrap some of the Mq functions to make it > easier for people more used to a simple 'wx redelget' to use. One issue I hope the Mq model does not have that the Teamware/SCCS model did is the SCCS/Teamware command restriction wherein certain SCCS commands caused Teamware problems. This is one reason I made those massive modifications to wx because I felt that the interface to managing workspace change should be fully compatible with Teamware. -- Will Fiveash Sun Microsystems Inc. Austin, TX, USA (TZ=CST6CDT) _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
